Friday, July 24, 2009

The main factor preventing the cessation of non-European immigration is not fear of nonwhite unrest and reaction, but whites’ own positive belief in non-European immigration, their deeply held view that it is morally wrong to exclude or discriminate against people on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, culture, and most of all race. If the still large white majorities of the West decided that they didn’t want non-European immigration to continue, it would stop. So our prospects are not as desperate as Lynn imagines. It is not true that no remedy is possible. Rather, no remedy is possible within our present belief system, our modern liberal belief system which requires us to commit national suicide. That’s why our existence as peoples and societies depends on replacing that belief system with one that upholds the validity of our historic nations and cultures and the necessity of preserving them. Not that such a change is going to be easy either, of course. Given the current entrenched power of liberalism over our societies, and over the mind of virtually every individual in those societies, our situation is indeed grim. But it is not hopeless. I think it is entirely possible that the demographic and ideological trends that are currently leading to civilizational suicide, and that now seem so irreversible, will be reversed. And the first step of that reversal is the total rejection — within each one of us — of modern liberalism. As the number of non-liberals in Western society increases, and as the hideous problems caused by liberalism also increase, a change in overall political direction will become possible.

171
comments:

but whites’ own positive belief in non-European immigration, their deeply held view that it is morally wrong to exclude or discriminate against people on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, culture, and most of all race. If the still large white majorities of the West decided that they didn’t want non-European immigration to continue, it would stop.

He has forgotten one EXTREMLY important factor. And that is the 80% that could not care less.

So long as they have their Alcho-pops, betting shops, and cheap pornography (As Orwell described it), they will let the "Governments" get away with ANY thing.

Therefore they have not got a CLUE what is going on. Even if they HAVE, they think their democcratic duty is done by writing a stiff two line post on a news paper web site, then sitting back to watch Sponge Bob, or whatever turns their low I.Q on.

These are the people that will wake up with the knock on the door of the "British (read here German/Dutch/French, etc, etc) council of muslim propriety thought police" one morning in ten years time, because they were not in mosque yesterday, and complain like Hel that no one told them this would happen.

Shieldline: Most people indeed don't give a toss. They're more interested in watching big Brother.

The notion of British society opiating itself with a television show called Big Brother even as Orwell's Ingsoc engulfs a once proud nation with true Big Brother, renders inadequate the entire concept of irony.

One need merely to read the comments left by readers of the television show's review. All of them praise this monstrous waste of human time and energy. It is difficult to imagine a more sure indicator that Britain is most likely lost to our world.

4symbols, you're confusing a forcible silencing with a complicit lack of response. The left owns the media, all the major political parties - and even the majority of the British blogosphere is just an extension of that same left-controlled media through corprate blogs that have managed to capture most of the limelight. We have almost no voice at all here and too many of the "big" voices are too obsessed with the goings-on inside Westminster to notice the world. They're all part of the same little bubble-world.

People have almost no trust. Everything they say may and in fact will end up on some civil servant's computer at some point, every step they take is recorded and photographed and people with "contrary" opinions already find that they're being shut out of the system in small but effective ways.

This is a totalitarian society that appears to be free. That illusion makes it easy to say that we aren't responding and appear to be lazy - truth be told most people don't want to believe that their once free nation is so rapidly turning against them. Would you? I certainly don't want to believe it but I just can't see otherwise. But then I don't watch television much, so I don't have that drug to numb my brain. Most resort to this because it takes away the feeling that they're utterly alone in their beliefs. When the state, the media and everything they hear tells them that what they see with their eyes isn't true and that they're the only one that believes it, they feel utterly, totally alone. We are the silent majority but many have no knowledge of others with the same mind and even when they do, society works it's hardest to convince them they're alone.

And before you shout about laziness, remember that this is a society that has been effectively instilling mistrust in its members for the better part of three generations now, through subversion of trusted institutions, educational abuse to turn children against parents and a series of supreme cock-ups and half-arsed governance. Most people on the right, when asked, would not trust anyone claiming to believe the same thing as themselves. Most people would consider that a trap, and in this country that would be a wise decision. We have no trust, and so we cannot operate effectively as a group until trust has been established. And given that this trust can be, and has been broken at any time, trust is a very rare commodity these days.

So please, do not simply dismiss the majority as lazy. They are scared and trapped and alone, and see no way out but they aren't lazy.

Laurence Auster is, unfortunately, talking nonsense. I would have expected him to know better. Such an analysis deliberately avoids the size, and deep roots, of the problem.

It isn’t simply a question of changing “our present belief system”.

First, that belief system arises because the welfare Ponzi scheme requires each generation to be bigger than the last, and the reverse is happening. Politicians need more young people to maintain the welfare promises which get them elected, so they import them. They know that those imports are more welfare dependent, highly criminalised, and ineducable, but such a person is still more productive than a retiree who doesn’t work, draws a pension, takes a lot of welfare and health costs. Politicians also realise that immigrants will retire eventually, negating any possible gain, but the effects of that won’t kick in until long after the politician has gone.

So for politicians it’s a choice between reducing immigration or reducing welfare provision. And good luck selling voters on your proposals to cut pensions, healthcare, and education.

Second, the main issue isn’t so much straightforward “immigration” as “family reunification”. You can enact all the immigration restrictions, point systems, skill requirements you like, but that won’t keep out the spouses and dependent parents. And anyone who thinks that a European government can end family reunification at a stroke hasn’t thought the issue through.

Third, the other contributor to the growth of Islam in Europe, and the main contributor as the size of that population grows, is higher birthrates. Good luck trying to reduce that with “our present belief system”.

The problem with Islam in the west, particularly Europe, isn’t so much terrorism, or PC claptrap, although these increase volatility. The problem is the width and depth of the division between European and Muslim populations. Coupled with the size of the problem as muslim populations grow. And the evidence is that that division is total, and the growth in muslim population very fast indeed.

If reversal is possible, Laurence Auster hasn’t found a method yet.

And neither has anyone else, short of carnage that I, and I suspect many others, wouldn’t be prepared to go along with.

Your's is an excellent analysis of the crimilisation and enforced isolation of people and ideas that is such a major tactic of this exercise in totalitarianism. One of the keys to unlocking it is to remove the isolation and mistrust.

The continued travel down the road chosen by liberalism, is most assuredly going to take us to the destination to which you claim to be "not prepared to go along with" ... well bully for you, but let me ask you ... do you have children? If the answer to that question is in the negative, then I guess I can see, you are indeed a product of modern education. Of course if the answer is actually yes, that you do indeed have children, how do you plan on looking them in the eye, in your declining years, when they ask you ..."how could you ... how could you betray us so utterly to such a degraded future. How could you not do something, was your virtue so precious to you that you would sell out your own children" Not sure I'd like to be in your shoes on that day. The carnage you so fear, was / is not of our choosing, it has been foisted on us by Islam's singular diktats, encouraged and fertilized by Western intellectualism and its self loathing dogmas, formulated from sack cloth and ignorance by Marxist concupiscence.

We have traveled this road for far too long to be able to reverse course without some terrible civil strife; the degree of barbarity will I suspect be charted for us by our adversaries, for as their actions become more barbaric, so our own conscience will become more brutalized, and in so, become more annealed to a stern resolve, so your virtue and your conscience will have to become acquainted with getting a little dirty ... sorry about that Hal, but fate and the future, or at least the near future of events, are not in our purview, but entirely at the discretion and direction of our ruling elites (for now), and their shock troops of the Islamic Ummah. Anything and everything you and I and all of us do, will be in response to ongoing intrusions into our civil communities and social tranquility. We are mere reactors to events outside our control at this time, until the time we seize our own destinies from the hands of usurpers.

Remember ... we call ourselves free men ... it's about time we started acting like them. And yes, freemen sometimes have to get their hands dirty ... but the longer we wait, the dirtier we will have to get.

Free Hal: The problem is the width and depth of the division between European and Muslim populations.

Whether or not I agree with you in total, the above statement represents a fundamental question that most definitely needs addressing.

1.) Why is there such a deep divide between European and Islamic populations?

2.) What is responsible for both that divide and its astonishing width or depth?

3.) Upon whom is it incumbent to strive towards eliminating that divide?

Answers:

1.) There remains a fundamental imiscibility between Europe's Christian based culture and that of Islam. Their respective legal and societal frameworks simply will not dovetail in even the slightest respect.

2.) More importantly, upon the part of Europeans, this divide is not due to any significant societal bias or prejudice.

Responsibility lies with those who have worked hardest towards propagating a climate of incompatibility. A brief examination of pre-existing diversity―prior to the huge immigration influx in Europe―reveals that Europeans maintained a relatively healthy tradition of accepting outsiders into their communities.

Even the most cursory review of cultural diversity within Islam―both historically and in modern times― reveals a pronounced tendency towards abrupt and even violent assimilation rather than any form of peaceful integration with outside cultures or those that were conquered by Muslims.

This factor remains prominent today as can be seen by the total lack of religious diversity in Muslim majority nations. Furthermore, this lack is driven directly by government policy that is also reinforced by Qur'anic doctrine.

The astonishing depth of this divide can be traced back directly to Islam's closure of the door to ijtihad and the gross stagnation of Muslim culture that ensued from that point on.

While the vast majority of other world cultures either advanced themselves or accepted the advances offered them by outside influences, Islam remained almost entirely immune to such change.

Islam's obsession with maintaining its "purity" left it an old maid at the altar of modern progress. This left Muslim cultures barren of original thought and even less prone to technological or scientific development.

Preferring to remain caught in amber, its structure crystallized into a rigid hierarchy of elite clerics and scholars whose power would only more recently be superceded by its political leaders.

3.) Finally, even the most brief comparison of Muslim majority nations to even those subjugated by the 20th century's most awkward socio-political systems (e.g., Soviet Russia and Communist China) will reveal that those countries have made more progress than the MME (Muslim Middle East).

If it is incumbent upon anyone to make a sincere effort at bridging the temporal gap that exists between Muslim majority nations and modern societies, that responsibility lies with Islam.

Instead, we are treated to a strident demand that modern cultures return to stone age values and abandon advanced technologies rather than enjoy the "decadent fruits" of so much hard-won progress.

Free Hal: And neither has anyone else [found a method], short of carnage that I, and I suspect many others, wouldn’t be prepared to go along with.

At some point it will no longer be a matter of whether one wants to "go along" with violent resolution of Europe's Islamic colonization. It will boil down to existential survival and things will become far more polarized at that point than they are right now.

Just Another Richard: Of course if the answer is actually yes, that you do indeed have children, how do you plan on looking them in the eye, in your declining years, when they ask you ..."how could you ... how could you betray us so utterly to such a degraded future. How could you not do something, was your virtue so precious to you that you would sell out your own children?".

This is a question I addressed elwhere here at this site. Despite any title and deed, we hold this world in stewardship for those who will follow us. Ours is the obligation to leave this world a better place than we found it.

Surrendering centuries of progress to abject barbarism, all in the name of a much exalted moral high ground will render our current value systems null and void.

The carnage you so fear, was / is not of our choosing, it has been foisted on us by Islam's singular diktats, encouraged and fertilized by Western intellectualism and its self loathing dogmas, formulated from sack cloth and ignorance by Marxist concupiscence.

This is, perhaps, the single most vital thing to remember. The level of barbarism and savagery which victory against Islam will most likely require will not be of our own chosing. We conquered the Nazis and Imperial Japanese without sinking to their level of war crimes and we shall prevail against our Islamic enemies in a similar fashion.

We have traveled this road for far too long to be able to reverse course without some terrible civil strife; the degree of barbarity will I suspect be charted for us by our adversaries, for as their actions become more barbaric, so our own conscience will become more brutalized, and in so, become more annealed to a stern resolve, so your virtue and your conscience will have to become acquainted with getting a little dirty ...

I ran across some of my comments that had been published at another web site in answer to how mockery was the best tool to fight Islam. I'll share them with you here:

ONE MORE TIME.Fifty or sixty years ago? Sure, mockery would do just fine. WE ARE NOW IN THE AGE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS. We no longer have the luxury of such genteel methods as ridicule and lampooning. Islam must be crushed and damned soon. Pakistan's tenuous control of its own nuclear arsenal should be enough to give any competent military planner conniption fits. We do not have a few decades to wait. We have less than TEN YEARS to turn this situation around before total Hell breaks loose.

All Muslim majority countries must be denied access to nuclear weapons until Islam has been neutralized. Nothing less will do. Anything short of such a policy will permit Islam to inflict sufficient damage upon the Western world that even the most brutal retaliation will not change how civilization will have been mutilated, possibly beyond all recognition.

I would sooner see every Muslim on earth perish than endure even a single major Western metropolis being immolated by an Islamic terrorist nuclear attack. WE HAVE TOO MUCH TO LOSE. The sandswept MME (Muslim Middle East) cesspits are already so close to the stone age that they have little more to sacrifice save their populations. Something they are all too ready to do. Need I remind you of Khomeini's 1980 speech in Qom?

We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.

You DO NOT ridicule such insanity. You DO NOT mock such psychosis. You KILL IT in sufficient quantities whereby such concentrated evil no longer constitutes a threat. We can do this by targeting [several thousand of] Islam's aristocracy or resign ourselve to genocide on an unheard of scale. Those are the options.

Again, Islam has nothing to lose. We have the Smithsonian, the Library of Congress, the Louvre, the Uffizi and myriad other irreplacable troves of genius that must be retained to inspire further generations of artisans yet to come.

Permitting Islam to vandalize even one such treasure is an unpardonable sin. We have worked far too hard merely so some thugs can bull their way through the China shop of Western heritage.

Put another way: How many of these incalculable jewels of civilization are you willing to see immolated as the price of kick-starting dormant Western intervention?

Lawrence Auster is indeed right. It all comes down to changing our belief system. However, even if Auster's depth of awareness regarding this might even be at the magnitude of the whole rest of the blogosphere put together, he still hasn't grasped the full extent of what thorough kind of change we are about to (and bound to) go through.

The two cornerstones of Auster's reconstruction work are Christianity and America. Well, these were the two things that did (and was bound to!) give birth to modern liberalism in the first place. Big DUH! Go figure...

So yes, reversal is possible. In fact, it is bound to happen. People today live in a historyless now-bubble-world, and have forgotten about all previous such complete reversals, many of which happened in the last century.

But no, this is not driven by historical materialism as suggested by Free Hal. The belief system is the root of it.

Furor Teutonicus wrote:

He has forgotten one EXTREMLY important factor. And that is the 80% that could not care less.

So long as they have their Alcho-pops, betting shops, and cheap pornography (As Orwell described it), they will let the "Governments" get away with ANY thing.

And this is exactly why they are not an important factor, and by no means "EXTREMLY important". These people will simply opportunistically align with any new message that comes from above, just as if nothing had changed. When the tune changes they will just continue to sing with the choir. Thank the gods for these people! If only more people were like them. It's the politically "conscious" people that are the problem, i.e. leftist and liberal activists of all stripes. People who understand nothing about statesmanship and political affairs, but have got a strong sense of entitlement that they know-it-all. They are the ones destroying our society.

However, not only Auster, but most anti-estblishment people in the blogosphere are still too much identitywise invested in the current belief system (even when partly disconnected). I've tried during the years to communicate this problem to these people, but with minor success. I think I have been too early with my ideas. I have concluded that they will simply have to go through the spasms of the inner contractions of their beliefs and myths by their own. I'm simply too tired of standing there like Max von Sydow getting squirts of vomit in my face, while trying to assist them in driving out the demons that possess them.

But these spasms have their inner dynamics, and will work out themselves -- intrinsic contradictions always do! No assistance is needed. Just stay out of the way of the fits and the vomit.

In some more years from now, when people have lost most of their demons -- clashing with reality, clashing with each other -- and a demand for a new belief system is really there, in the vacuum that appears, only then I think a reasonable and civilized dialog is possible about it. And for then I have a few suggestions and ideas.

"I would sooner see every Muslim on earth perish than endure even a single major Western metropolis being immolated by an Islamic terrorist nuclear attack." - Zenster.

At last someone speaks in my language! But it’s more probable that the West will endure a nuke or two before finally starting to wake up and get rid once and for all of the treasonous liberal Zeitgeist.

I like Auster. He has the guts to talk about racial subjects: the nastiest taboo in today's suicidal West. He is right: culture goes hand and hand with ethnicity. Why can't we just say: "Hey, I like the American 1950s before non-European immigration", or "I love the 1970s in Sweden before immigration?" What has happened to Westerners' psyche that they cannot longer talk about race? I had the guts to talk about race --in Mexico! (even though I am an ethnic minority there). Auster has guts and I like him for that.

Chechar, I can only hope that you embrace what I say within the scope of avoiding the Muslim holocaust that so much of American and, especially, European leadership seems to be so utterly oblivious of.

Angelo Codevilla, also at the Claremont Review, goes further than his colleague Mark Helprin, advocating the outright destruction of several terror- and jihad- supporting Muslim regimes, either by killing the members ourselves (about 2,000 in each country) or, better, turning them over to their domestic enemies. [emphasis added]

Codevilla "gets it". He understands that you must kill those whose death achieves the greatest change. Neither Bush nor Obama displays the least comprehension of this idea. They continue the one-bullet-at-a-time sort of police action that will only see one or a few Western cities immolated in nuclear plasma.

But it’s more probable that the West will endure a nuke or two before finally starting to wake up and get rid once and for all of the treasonous liberal Zeitgeist.

Brutal as it sounds, this is a price that I am not willing to pay. A solid analogy resides in how America saved both Allied and Japanese lives by waging nuclear war against Japan.

Islamic terrorist nuclear attacks will also see a decline in foreign aid, response to natural and epidemic catastrophies whereby the MME (Muslim Middle East) could just as easily undergo the same level of population attrition that overwhelming Western nuclear response might provide.

Again, in the most perverse sense, this is not any fault of the West. Islam has so intentionally starved its people, both technologically, industrially, nutritionally and medically, that they remain vulnerable to even the most marginal displacements of crop harvest, water supply or simple economic downside.

None of this is the West's responsibility, yet Islam continues to play the victim so that Europe especially and America too both bleed themselves white while trying to account for the horrific wrongs wrought upon Muslims by their own political and clerical elite.

I had written:People today live in a historyless now-bubble-world, and have forgotten about all previous such complete reversals, many of which happened in the last century.

Therefore the widespread and deep sense of hopelessness, I forgot to add. It's hard to conceptualize a situation outside of the bubble, or the bubble not being there, when living inside of the bubble. However, history provides us with numerous examples of such reversals, of bubbles bursting, and of course new bubbles being built (we are bubble mammals after all).

This is my happy message, my gospel. People just need to let go of their precious beliefs and myths, these their huggy teddy bears (i.e. their demons). When deeply invested in the core beliefs of the bubble, it becomes impossible to look outside of the bubble, to think of a world without the bubble, and everything looks utterly hopeless. Well, it's not. On the contrary, the bubble will burst.

After you, sir. Please be the first to let go of your "precious beliefs" and your "myths" and tell us what you're willing to part with in your belief system.

Every single human being has beliefs and myths, they simply vary from person to person. Nobody lives myth-free.

As a student of human nature, surely you know that the only way to get someone to "let go" is to offer him a better belief system.

Take smoking: lots of people smoke who would love to relinquish the habit. I know people for whom smoking is deadly mortal, yet they can't let go entirely, much to their frustration. Smoking offers them something that not-smoking hasn't got.

That's how change works: when the pain of holding on to a destructive belief is greater than the pain of letting it go, then the believer lets go and picks up another belief to replace it.

The smoker, managing to break free of his belief that he *has to* smoke, picks up the belief in not-smoking. Some of the not-smokers move on to become fundamentalist not-smokers. They can fulminate for hours on the evils thereof.

I could not agree with you more. The Multinational Coalition of Western nations owes it to itself to confiscate Pakistan's nuclear arsenal at the earliest opportunity. Nothing less is acceptable in terms of a signal to those in the MME (Muslim Middle East) who aspire to nuclear armaments.

After you, sir. Please be the first to let go of your "precious beliefs" and your "myths" and tell us what you're willing to part with in your belief system.

Now you bring this down to a personal level, as if you hadn't understood my argument. I'm not speaking of personal beliefs, but of the collectively held myths and beliefs -- which constitute the bubble!

If you find any such belief of the Western Christian civilization in its phase of modern liberalism that I hold on to, then please bring it up, and I'll revise it. Otherwise you are off-topic.

Every single human being has beliefs and myths, they simply vary from person to person. Nobody lives myth-free.

Once again: No, this is not what I'm talking of. I'm speaking of the collectively held beliefs having a constitutional function in our society -- the bubble!

Read Lawrence Auster article again and consider what he means by "within our present belief system". He's not speaking of some scattered little personal beliefs here and there. I'm sorry, but you are off-topic.

As a student of human nature, surely you know that the only way to get someone to "let go" is to offer him a better belief system.

On the contrary. Study paradigm changes both in the history of science and in political history, and you'll find that it's not until the prevailing paradigm collapses that the reconstruction work of a new paradigm begins. It's exactly the prevailing paradigm that stands in the way of the change! Surely intellectual work has always been done beforehand by single individuals, but it cannot reach the collective level until the prevailing paradigm has fallen and the revolution takes place. It's effectively blocked out. (This is the sort of situation described by e.g. Graham Dawson above).

The people in a society do not change paradigm because they have been offered a better one. They are deeply emotionally invested in the current paradigm with their identity, since the conditioning in their formative years. No, people only change paradigm in the wake of catastrophes and traumas (WWI, WWII e.g.)

The collapse of the prevailing paradigm comes first. But you are right about how humans abhor vacuum, so the void is soon filled with new myths again. As I already said, we are bubble mammals.

So here I side with Dymphna. There are no myth-free societies. What we would see after a change won't be a society of people with "free mind and healthy skepticism". What we'll see is a society where people are driven by new collective myths. The idea of a society of people with free minds is... just that... a myth.

However like the old Greeks and Romans, we need a class of intellectuals good at thinking, a class of militaries good at fighting, a class of businessmen good at creating wealth, etc. The rest can "have their Alcho-pops, betting shops" etc. as described by Furor Teutonicus. It's better if they don't even try to think on political or scientific matters. I understand that this statement is contrary to many people's core beliefs. But it's just how it is. And this is the way to make a society work.

1.) There remains a fundamental imiscibility between Europe's Christian based culture and that of Islam. Their respective legal and societal frameworks simply will not dovetail in even the slightest respect.

I disagree in one respect. Europe's present culture is NOT (culturally ) Christian, it is dominated by Leftists (DEEPLY irrational virtual pagans). One must keep in mind that 50 years ago, pace Qutb, most muslims did respect and admire the Christian West (the West's imperial domination also helped). One must study cultural history to understand just how badly the West's culture was shattered ('deconstructed') in the Western Cultural Revolution (1963-1979). We now have a Leftist elite "governing class" that believes that Western Civilization is invincible, and that we must make other cultures "more equal"; and a repressed proletariat of the common people who don't know what to believe.

We must understand that this happened during a period of OUR civilization's development in which we developed great political and technological dominance. People were so convinced that progress was inevitable that they allowed anti-western ideologies to infiltrate and dominate the West. We are now a zombified culture.

In contrast, the Muslim world views the past 2 centuries as a time of deep humiliation and defeat, so they are excited that they have finally started to figure out how to apply Shariah to modern technology. Their culture is largely intact, while our culture was deconstructed in the Western Cultural Revolution (1963-1979).

The point is that we must understand how people in the West thought about things BEFORE the Western Cultural Revolution (WCR), and even before FDR, in order to find the baby that was thrown out with the bathwater. Only then can we reject "modern liberalism" completely.

We must also understand the Islamic world's through the historical development of its civilization, rather than imposing the West's civilization on it as a "grid". The Western sterotype of Muslims is "slow-minded, weak, camel riding tribesmen that do all sorts of unneccessary and stupid stuff." Now, this may have seemed accurate to us when we saw the humiliated and conquered muslims in the Middle East when we (Westerners) drilled the oil fields in the mid-20th Century.

However, go ask the Serbs or Northern Indian Hindus if this is the image that comes to mind when they hear the word "Muslim". They will have a very different (and more accurate) image of Muslims than the one "westerners" hold [Both of these two peoples are "White" in skincolor]. Why is the image different? Becaue BOTH of these people were ruled by Muslims FOR 500 YEARS.

By the way, Zenster, did it ever occur to you that MAYBE an iron-fisted, good old fashioned Western colonialist policy of Imperialism MIGHT be the ONLY HUMANE way for the West to peacefully co-exist with these people (the Ummah)?

Could it be that the West made a mistake in giving these countries independence? One other aside-- before the WCR (1963-1979), western governments would have had no qualms about going in and "reimperializing the Greater MME and capturing their oil for our control (to prevent them from using the money for subversion against us). [And we could still do it in a couple of months if we thought it proper and ethical-- the problem is that our "governing class" would NEVER permit such a thing]. I suggest that you consider the impact of the Western Cultural Revoltution (WCR) on this subject.

By the way, Solkar the Diplomat has still not answered my query as to why the Eurabian Caliphate is impossible.

Yes, modern Europe is so secularized that it has largely overwhelmed the positivistic aspects of its previously Christian culture. However, that in no way disincludes the overwhelming influence―for good or bad―of the compassionate and worthy Social Contract enbued into said European culture by its Christian heritage.

We now have a Leftist elite "governing class" that believes that Western Civilization is invincible, and that we must make other cultures "more equal"; and a repressed proletariat of the common people who don't know what to believe.

While not an entirely persuasive proposition, your argument carries many important elements.

Yes, the invincibility of modern Western culture seems to be so assumed that few, if any, of its progeny understand the fragility of such a notion.

Still, I continue to believe that you underestimate the power of conviction that influences one of the most core aspects of America's power. Namely, its military. Signals have already been sent―as a shot across America's bipartisan political bow―that our military will not participate in disarming its citizens. Please do not underestimate the importance of this single fact.

We must also understand the Islamic world's through the historical development of its civilization, rather than imposing the West's civilization on it as a "grid".

Here, I agree with you completely. Islam must be understood on its own terms such that it may be held accountable on those exact same terms as well.

By the way, Zenster, did it ever occur to you that MAYBE an iron-fisted, good old fashioned Western colonialist policy of Imperialism MIGHT be the ONLY HUMANE way for the West to peacefully co-exist with these people (the Ummah)?.

Again, you seem relatively new here and may not know how often I have lamented that America and the Multinational Forces did not impost harsh military dictatorships upon the newly liberated countries―complete with night time curfews and shoot-on-sight policies for violaters―such that three generations later, inhabitants might be released from their Islamic thrall.

Ask anyone here and they will tell you just how often I have declared this lack of post-liberation dictatorship to be one of the West's greatest errors.

Could it be that the West made a mistake in giving these countries independence?.

In so much as they immediately re-installed shari'a law and became de facto sub rosa terrorist manufactories? Absolutely!

One other aside-- before the WCR (1963-1979), western governments would have had no qualms about going in and "reimperializing the Greater MME and capturing their oil for our control (to prevent them from using the money for subversion against us). [And we could still do it in a couple of months if we thought it proper and ethical-- the problem is that our "governing class" would NEVER permit such a thing]. I suggest that you consider the impact of the Western Cultural Revoltution (WCR) on this subject.

Again, you are preaching to a choir that has advocated confiscation of Islam's nuclear weapons and oil fields alike. I refer you to my comments regarding Functional Deterrents to Terrorism. Please read the linked comments and then reply with how much you think we disagree. Again, you are preaching to the choir.

We now turn to some social dimensions of the problem. Concerning the statement by Conservative Swede that "The rest can "have their Alcho-pops, betting shops" etc. as described by Furor Teutonicus," I must firmly disagree (although I agree with the rest of his post). The problem is that the West as a culture are simply "amusing ourselves to death" as Huxley put it. We have VERY WRONG delusions of reality in our "bubble world" that we have created. I'll deal with a few here.

First, the truth is that "what you do off the job determines how you do on the job," as I think Zig Ziglar put it. You cannot have a society that has "a class of intellectuals good at thinking, a class of militaries good at fighting, a class of businessmen good at creating wealth, etc." while at the same time having a populace of the masses "amusing themselves to death". How can these classes operate in reality when the society is mired in unreality and its "entertainment bubble" (Micheal Jackson, Survivor, American Idol, Hanna Montana, etc.). Proof of this is domonstated by the fact that the Greeks and Romans gradually lost the effectiveness of the aforementioned classes when they became prosperous and "bread and circuses" took hold of the 'popular classes'.

Secondly, the West has come to believe that it is the 'most advanced' Culture, and thus its survival is guaranteed. The fact that most Westerners can't imagine a 21st. Century Eurabian Caliphate (or other worse possible outcomes) makes Westerners incapable of doing what is neccessary for them to survive.

But let's unpack the assumption of the 'most advanced' cultures surviving over "primitive' cultures based on natural selection. Natural selection is really just the survival of the survivors, but it is important that it is concerned with survival, not making things "nice", 'pleasant', 'easy' or even 'humane'. From this, it follows that it is important to consider philosophies and moral codes in the light to suitability to various difficultly level of survival.

This is new thinking to you, but stick with me-- survival requires responsibility and discipline. A society's moral codes are an expression of what level of responsibility and discipline it requires of individuals for survival. Many people will say that Islam (and maybe Christianity for that matter) are primitive, because they demand things that are "unnecessary" in the modern world. But the thing that must be realized is that both Islam and Christianity enabled societies to survive in environments that were much more marginal than our Modern Western Society. Meanwhile, the "secular progressive" worldview was created in a Western environment of ease and abundance, which threw out the Judeo-Christian codes of discipline and responsibility as "unnecessary". But "Secular Progressivism" has never faced a more marginal environment than it was created in. Therefore, it will fail when things go "south" in a society.

We must try to go and recover the "baby" that was thrown out with the "bathwater" in the WC Revolution.

Think of the difference between wild sheep and domestic sheep. Domestic Sheep are 'more desirable' than wild sheep to man; but if both are in the wild, wild sheep will survive, and domestic sheep won't. Thus, when the culture of Mali and Somalia faces off against that of Modern Sweden and Holland, you will probably be surprised at which culture will survive.

Concerning the statement by Conservative Swede that "The rest can "have their Alcho-pops, betting shops" etc. as described by Furor Teutonicus," I must firmly disagree (although I agree with the rest of his post). The problem is that the West as a culture are simply "amusing ourselves to death" as Huxley put it. We have VERY WRONG delusions of reality in our "bubble world" that we have created.

I stand corrected!

Actually just that formulation was jocular. I sort of got entangled in references. If you remember in my answer to Furor Teutonicus in my first comment that there's something inherently good with these people who are not politically "conscious". I even said "Thank the gods for these people!". You know I consider it a strength of the US system that 50% of the people are wise enough not to vote.

The politically "conscious" people are the ones causing trouble in any society, and the most animated ones of which, as described by Yuri Bezmenov (Part 1, Part 2), will have to be eliminated, since they destroy any orderly society.

So thank the gods for all the people who are not like that! But when I referred back to this, I couldn't help myself and used FT's characterization of such people, "Alcho-pops, betting shops", to represent this idea.

But as you said, in a good and functional society ordinary people won't act like that. In fact, even today there is a vast mass of ordinary people who do not act like that.

So we agree. Completely. And furthermore you say a whole lot of other interesting things in your comment, that adds to this discussion in a good way. But I will have to bring that up in a later comment. So I'll also say:

The concept is that ease and abundance are positive goods, and that deprivation and poverty are unredeemable evils that MUST be eliminated. Mark Steyn makes the argument that the Welfare state envenerated Western Society, but I here go to the thinking that STARTED the welfare state in the first place. The thinking was found in FDR's speech about "four freedoms" which included 'freedom from fear'(government meeting safety needs) and 'freedom from want'(government meeting psyciological needs). While this thinking sounded appealing, it meant that the government declared war on society's survival needs. And as I posit in my Societal Self-Actualization Thesis, survival needs are what keeps a society grounded in reality. Failure and struggle can be GOOD things (they make a culture TOUGH AND STRONG). Conversely, ease and abundance can make a culture become too weak and disconnected from reality to survive. (Remember the Domestic vs. Wild sheep analogy). I think that the problem with importing these 'primitives' into the West is that they are more used to the STRUGGLE for SURVIVAL than Westerners (Something to think about).

The fourth major delusion we have is that rapid population growth for a society is bad, and that a controlled population is good. Although the "Population Bomb" and the anti-natalist Leftists promoted this theory to the hilt, it is totally false. First, why did the West have such dominance in the late 19th and 20th. Centuries? It is because the West experienced a population explosion during the 19th. Century, while other regions of the World had stable populations. The extra "people power" enabled the West to settle the world. Steyn said that England was the first nation to conquer infant mortality (in 1820). Well, he was NOT entirely accurate. Another nation conquered infant mortality 200 years before that, (without the aid of modern medicine). But more than that, this nation was the champion of human fertility rates for nearly 250 years. The fertility rates of this nation soared like a fighter jet with full afterburners. It would even have given the Kenyan women of the 1980's (known for their breeding prowess in modern history) very stiff competition. The women discharged babies like combat shotguns with extended magazines. Women who had 6 to 8 children were considered average, and women who had a 12 or more children were NOT UNCOMMON.

Well, you ask, which nation was this? It was America, from the Pilgrims to the Civil War. Did you know that Ben Franklin was the 15th. child out of 17 children?? Or that Daniel Boone's parents had 11 children, and he and his wife had 10?? It is historical fact. America had a continual population explosion (at the rate of your typical supersonic African Country) for this entire period.

Think about this: If "family planning" had existed and been used in the English North American colonies, by say, 1720, the United States of America would LIKELY NOT EXIST TODAY-- Native Americans would likely still be roaming the Great Plains.

Often, many diplomats and members of the "governing class" will say, "these poor countries [say in Africa, or countries like Yemen and Afghanistan] will never amount to anything if they keeping breeding like they do, for they will always be poor". Well, in the 19th. Century, two poor, backward nations, with much higher fertility rates than Western Europe, existed. One was the United States of America, and the other was Russia. Anyone heard of those two countries in the history of the 20th. Century?

Finally, many people think that Muslims fertility rates will come down when the settle in Europe. Well, for starters, the U.S. Hispanic fertility rate is higher than the fertility rate in most Latin American countries today. I think that even by their free will, Muslimas will have more children than the current native European women (if you want to wear a niqab or burka, refusing "family planning" is not so hard). If not, Muslim men will have the sense to "choose proper family size for them" rather than adopt modern euro-ways of extinction. In fact, when Philip Longman (no conservative) wrote in "The Empty Cradle" about a way to keep human birth rates at sustainable levels, he called it the "Taliban solution"!

Watch the 'Demographic Winter' documentary for information on this point.

I had written this article before for another blog, but I will republish it, to both introduce my Self-Actualization Thesis (tell me what you think, Chechar), and to show just what we are up against to reverse this.

Multiculturalism—What it really isYou are right that "blind multiculturalism" is a severe problem. However, there is a bigger picture that is most sobering here. "Blind Multiculturalism" as you call it, is the current guiding principle of secular progressives. Another crucial fact we must realize is that most governments in the West are NOT true democracies, but shadow oligarchies. They are oligarchies because they are ruled by a loosely connected, but extremely well organized group of the "elite class", mainly composed of the well-educated and well-to-do. Through empowering the bureaucracy and the judicial system with wide policy-making powers, which they largely control, they largely control the government, and it is very difficult for the common people to reverse policies that this "elite class" wants (due to much lower organization). When asked, why is multiculturalism the policy of governments even though common people didn't vote it in, I suggest looking at the concept of hierarchy of needs for an answer.

Physiological and safety needs (survival) are at the bottom of the list, while "self-actualization" is at the top. Even in wealthy countries, the common people have some level of struggle for survival, so they will understand and accept reality. However, an "elite class" has very little sense of a struggle for survival in such wealthy societies, and thus the drive for "self-actualization" can diverge from reality. If the elite's quest for "self-actualization" conflicts with the realities of the struggle for survival, the common people will feel it first and hardest, but the elite will not notice until it is too late. Under a real democracy, bad policies that threaten a society's survival are stopped, because the common people will feel the negative socioeconomic effects first. In an oligarchy, however, bad policies tend to remain in place if supported by the "elite class", well after a democratic majority opposes them. It appears that this is what has happened in Western societies.

"Multiculturalism" has several basic assumptions which are FALSE.

1)linear progress-- things do NOT automatically get better with time, history is much more cyclical than westerners realize, there are periods of regression as well as progress [visible regressions often come rapidly, while progress tends to be slower) 2)Ethnocentrism-- all cultures and peoples have basically the same motivations, goals, and views as we Westerners do (they do NOT--some cultures [such as Islam] are very different from the modern West in motivations, goals, and view 3) Ideological Racism-- people have different levels of psychological advancement based on their belief systems (secularists are "more psychologically advanced", while religious people are "more psychologically primitive")-- This is SS Nazi Racism that substitutes ideology for genetics!! 4) Western culture can NEVER FALL to another culture, because it is guided by "psychologically advanced" people (secular progressives) while other cultures are more backward and "psychologically primitive" [religious] -- See the "logic"?

I had written this article before for another blog, but I will republish it, to both introduce my Self-Actualization Thesis (tell me what you think, Chechar), and to show just what we are up against to reverse this.

Multiculturalism—What it really isYou are right that "blind multiculturalism" is a severe problem. However, there is a bigger picture that is most sobering here. "Blind Multiculturalism" as you call it, is the current guiding principle of secular progressives. Another crucial fact we must realize is that most governments in the West are NOT true democracies, but shadow oligarchies. They are oligarchies because they are ruled by a loosely connected, but extremely well organized group of the "elite class", mainly composed of the well-educated and well-to-do. Through empowering the bureaucracy and the judicial system with wide policy-making powers, which they largely control, they largely control the government, and it is very difficult for the common people to reverse policies that this "elite class" wants (due to much lower organization). When asked, why is multiculturalism the policy of governments even though common people didn't vote it in, I suggest looking at the concept of hierarchy of needs for an answer.

Physiological and safety needs (survival) are at the bottom of the list, while "self-actualization" is at the top. Even in wealthy countries, the common people have some level of struggle for survival, so they will understand and accept reality. However, an "elite class" has very little sense of a struggle for survival in such wealthy societies, and thus the drive for "self-actualization" can diverge from reality. If the elite's quest for "self-actualization" conflicts with the realities of the struggle for survival, the common people will feel it first and hardest, but the elite will not notice until it is too late. Under a real democracy, bad policies that threaten a society's survival are stopped, because the common people will feel the negative socioeconomic effects first. In an oligarchy, however, bad policies tend to remain in place if supported by the "elite class", well after a democratic majority opposes them. It appears that this is what has happened in Western societies.

"Multiculturalism" has several basic assumptions which are FALSE.

1)linear progress-- things do NOT automatically get better with time, history is much more cyclical than westerners realize, there are periods of regression as well as progress [visible regressions often come rapidly, while progress tends to be slower) 2)Ethnocentrism-- all cultures and peoples have basically the same motivations, goals, and views as we Westerners do (they do NOT--some cultures [such as Islam] are very different from the modern West in motivations, goals, and view 3) Ideological Racism-- people have different levels of psychological advancement based on their belief systems (secularists are "more psychologically advanced", while religious people are "more psychologically primitive")-- This is SS Nazi Racism that substitutes ideology for genetics!! 4) Western culture can NEVER FALL to another culture, because it is guided by "psychologically advanced" people (secular progressives) while other cultures are more backward and "psychologically primitive" [religious] -- See the "logic"?

5)The West is so "advanced" that it has progressed beyond the struggle for survival with other cultures, and will wipe out other cultures if not CONTROLLED-- the West is not invincible.

6)The West has racist, oppressive, imperialist, bigoted,(ROIB) tendencies that define it, which other cultures do not have.-- NOT TRUE

7)all NON-WESTERN cultures lag behind the West SOLELY because the WEST (by reason of its innate ROIB nature) has brutally oppressed non-western culture--NOT TRUE

8)Auschwitz shows the horrific result of innate uniquely WESTERN ROIB tendencies not being suppressed, and if they are not suppressed, Western-caused genocide will happen before we know it-- Westerners are NOT innately genocidal!

9)If WESTERN OPPRESSION (caused by innate ROIB tendencies) is eliminated, all of humanity will SUDDENLY CATAPULT into tremendous progress resulting in imminent utopia-- they actually BELIEVE this.

10) To end WESTERN OPPRESSION, we westerners MUST prevent suppression of or OFFENSE TO anything non-western or anti-western(with "tolerance", "diversity", etc.)--They also believe THIS.

11)Thus, we WESTERNERS MUST make CONCESSIONS to all things anti-western (or better yet, NON-WESTERN) whenever non-westerners are OFFENDED OR "OPPRESSED" [We must, after all, prevent the innate ROIB monster from rearing its ugly head, and only CONCESSIONS to non-westerners (misunderstood minorities)can suppress the innate ROIB monster.]

And finally, 12) we must feel very grateful when oppressed non-westerners point out CONCESSIONS we can make to alleviate their oppression, and we must give them the CONCESSIONS THEY POINT OUT.

These 12 ideas are the core assumptions of "blind multiculturalism". It is basically a form of cultural Marxism, but the 'elite class' believes this as articles of faith. Thus, we can understand that concessions are a kind of goodwill sacred OFFERING that should be made to SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, anti-western or non-western.

The Jihadis have sort of figured this out, and so they are shouting "We are NON-WESTERN and oppressed”, and they are getting concessions left and right. When jihadis define jihad as "STRUGGLE OF THE MASSES OF MUSLIM PEOPLE AGAINST THE OPPRESSION OF WESTERN IMPERIALISM" you will be SHOCKED at the concessions the 'elite class' will give jihadis. (How COULD THEY POSSIBLY SUPPORT WESTERN IMPERIALISM)? Heaven help us if the jihadis ever figure out that incessantly crying "western imperialism" is much more effective at "terrorizing the kafirs" than nuclear weapons!!!

The 'elite class" doesn't really care about facts; they just want to continue enforcing the views according to their fantasy view of the world. The only way to save our society is to dethrone this "elite class" and repudiate their whole way of "thinking". Only then can concessions to Islam be stopped.

My family are, and always have been, followers of the Germannic/ Saami tradition of religious belief.

We know my Great-great-Grandmother read and taught Runic divination and Norse mythology. She was also a Noide, or a Shaman. As was my Great-Grandmother and my Grandmother. All of whom were born and lived their whole lives in Sapmi, the Saami homelands.

Even though my family are largely Germannic rather than Saami, the ways of life are very similar with a large amount of correspondence between the Gods of the Norse and those of the Saami. The comparison between our own, Saami, Finnish and Germanic religion has enabled us to ensure that we are following the tradition in the same way as our ancestors did, right back to Volkswanderung times and beyond.

We are, therefore MORE European than the greater percentage HERE.

So you had better start thinking of apologising for insulting us, the people that are still fighting the FIRST invaders from the middle East that ruined OUR European culture.

Watching Eagle: "Another crucial fact we must realize is that most governments in the West are NOT true democracies, but shadow oligarchies. They are oligarchies because they are ruled by a loosely connected, but extremely well organized group of the "elite class", mainly composed of the well-educated and well-to-do... etc... "

This is an interesting theory. Are you referring to Maslow's pyramid? What you are saying has psychological veracity. This is not too dissimilar to my own explanation of Sweden's liberalism. Namely, it has not been in war for a long time, and the population has lost touch with reality to some degree. But let me be a devil's advocate. Why wouldn't the same logic work for previous governments or previous socio-economic formations, to use Marxian terms? Isn't it true that the elite has always been privileged and out of touch with reality (always in the realm of "self-actualization" rather than survival)? So how is today's situation different?

Here is how I understand multiculturalism, for what it's worth. In feudal times, the king represented the interests of landed aristocracy. The government governed people with the vested interest in a large swatch of contiguous land properties. So the governement represented the territory and the people who pooulated that territory. With capitalism and money-economy, property and ownership became "virtual." It quickly crossed international borders and have now formed a cartel of global corporations. If our governments were true democracies, they would still represent the collective will of their respective populations, but, as you rightly say, we are today ruled by shadow oligarchies, our governments represent the interests of the oligarchies that are no longer nation- and territory-bound. On the contrary, their interests are on the collision course with nationalist interests.

The collectively held beliefs having a constitutional function in our society -- the bubble! Read Lawrence Auster article again and consider what he means by "within our present belief system"… Study paradigm changes both in the history of science and in political history, and you'll find that it's not until the prevailing paradigm collapses that… The people in a society do not change paradigm because they have been offered a better one. They are deeply emotionally invested in the current paradigm with their identity, since the conditioning in their formative years. No, people only change paradigm in the wake of catastrophes and traumas (WWI, WWII e.g.) The collapse of the prevailing paradigm comes first.” – Conservative Swede

The current paradigm or present belief system is based upon a group fantasy that needs to collapse if the West is to be saved. The group fantasy develops in multiple forms of self-hate (Marxism, liberalism, multiculturalism, anti-white racism, etc.). This month I added an entry on this subject, which crucial paragraph is cited below. However, my model to understand the present “bubble”, as Conservative Swede put it, is complex and it will require a series of independent GoV threads to explain it. Meanwhile I quote from my blog:

"Group fantasy" is a term coined by Lloyd deMause. For instance, the attribution of extreme malevolence to the Jews, a group fantasy, found its way into eliminationist anti-Semitism among Hitler's willing executioners. Miller has written a book arguing that these willing executioners displaced the unconscious hate they felt toward their abusive parents to the Jews. That the Jews were the curse of all Volk was the group fantasy during Nazi Germany.

Since deMause sides with the far political left, he has never used the notion of group fantasy to analyze the current Western self-hatred. However, psychiatrists whose working hypothesis is the trauma model of mental disorders have noted that if anger toward the real perpetrators—our abusive parents—is blocked, either clinical depression or self-harming behavior in patients will eventually emerge. If we place our culture on the analyst' couch (see deMause's logo for his site), we may say that since the 1960s the West has chosen the second way, self-injury: something analogous to the deliberate infliction of tissue damage with or without suicidal intent, as briefly explained below.

Medieval monks who totally blocked displaced anger lived under a group fantasy of communal salvation through mortifications of the flesh, in a few cases to the point of near starvation. Analogously, today’s group fantasy transfers inwardly our unresolved childrearing hatred into self-harming ways such as: politically motivated and possibly pseudo-scientific environmental scares; anti-white racism and ethnic decline; cultural collapse in the form of mass immigration, multicultural dogma and cultural relativism; false feelings of guilt for our colonialist past (in my 4th book I argue that natives treated themselves far worse before the European conquests); willful blindness in front of a revived Islam as epitomized in the title of the book mentioned at the top of this entry; and even in Two Minutes Hate against the U.S. and Israel (such as the massive 2003 and 2008/2009 demonstrations in the West protesting against the legitimate attacks on Iraq and Palestine). All of this is the direct result of a transfer shift by baby boomers' rejection and redefinition of traditional values. In a nutshell: due to unresolved trauma, in the last decades pathological hatred to the Other has been transfigured into pathological hatred to oneself.

I don't believe we will ever change, there's no white horseman coming, no revolution, only death.

"We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. There is no other way. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that can not be taken from a man." Oswald Spengler.

Anyway i do believe that the honorable end can be taken from a man, in 1984 ways...

Separation from Islam and Muslims is necessary, or else we are all looking forward to a very nasty civil war. I cannot bear to think of yet another vicious civil war in Europe, leading to mass murder. Civil wars are like that. Common humanity requires a "separation" to avert such a catastrophe.

However, I cannot see any European government stopping Muslim immigration in whatever form, leave alone a reversal of Muslim immigration, as Auster would like. Family unifications, multiple spouses etc will continue, along with high Muslim birth rates. All these spell doom for the West.

Laurence Auster believes that a societal change can take place, which will induce Western society to enforce the necessary laws. For a societal change to have any effect on the current zeitgeist, it will have to be of truly seismic proportions - nothing else will do. I don’t think there is any hope for this in a peaceful democratic way - not within the time that is left.

Now to Geert Wilder. If elected with a healthy majority, he will have to move very quickly to institute and enforce laws that will ensure the security of the Netherlands i.e., in the honeymoon period. I don’t think he has much over a year to do this.

He will have to do all this against EU laws, to which the Netherlands is signed up to. I do not think the Dutch are ready to leave the EU. Then there will also be considerable opposition at home. Demonstrations, riots organised by the Left in conjunction with Muslims, as well as countless legal challenges. We will also see a steady stream of tearful Muslim women, children clutching their Mums and weeping in front of TV, as they are forced to leave their home, and place of birth. The media will play it for all it can - Wilders will be proved to be a "Nazi", no matter how liberal he is, and no matter how good his intentions. His government will fall, and an election called, just to avoid civil strife. So we have the ironic situation, that to avoid civil strife in the event of Islamic values becoming ascendant in the Netherlands, his cure will give rise to civil strife. If Geert Wilders pulls it off, I shall be very pleasantly surprised. However, the Wilders phenomenon helps in an indirect manner.

There are other ways that a society can change, impelled by our own external policies, which then compel enemy aliens to leave voluntarily. It also works fairly quickly, and without all the domestic fuss of a "Wilders" type policy.

No, I didn't mean to insult you. I meant to insult "secular progressives" (Virtual Polytheists)[which is the same as tell the truth about them]. But my real point is this: In the Nordic culture of yesteryear (or the aimist bushmen in Africa of today) if the chiefs told the people of the tribe, "we MUST unilaterally disarm and make concessions to other tribes, or else the "ROIB monster" will hurt other tribes", the people would have REMOVED those chiefs (might be exile or death), and tell them, "so What!! That is a problem for OTHER tribes!!! You deluded fools are UNFIT to rule!!!!"

I am sick of "SPs" elites telling us that Islam, other religions (or Christianity for that matter) are 'irrational' and that our society is guaranteed to survive because THEY are "enlightened" and 'rational'. Gengis Khan was a pagan and he (and some descendants) smashed the Caliphate all the way to Iraq and Syria.

One must realize the enormous problems the pagan turks and Mongols caused Islam during its "Golden Age".

However, the program of al-Hijra (migration) was carried out against first the Turks, then the Mongols [after Gengis Khan].

The Wily Muslims found a way to get them to "submit to the way of survival" [Shariah}, and to add the Turk and Mongol's biological and technological distinctiveness to their own. The Turks and Mongols were assimilated: Their cultures adapted to service the deen of Al-Islam.

To survive, we must do at least two things: 1) we must get some healthy respect and fear of Al-Hijra and those trying to take us over, and 2)we must be as rational and enlightened as the Nordic pagans would have been when faced with chiefs who wanted to surrender to other tribes to prevent other tribes from "being hurt" (REMOVE THESE LEADERS FROM POWER).

I don't believe we will ever change, there's no white horseman coming, no revolution, only death.

You are illustration here exactly what Auster described. How, when looking at things from within our present belief system, a reversal looks impossible.

But that's not how things work in a human society. What will be met by death are the institutions upholding the current order and belief system: the institutions in Brussels, the UN, the dollar hegemony, America as the world police, NATO, etc. The mental bubble will burst, and change will happen, After quite an amount of blood, death, catastrophe and traumas, of course.

Clearly many people will see the downfall of the current paradigm and its constitutional institutions as the end of the world. I cannot help but thinking of Joseph Goebbels when I saw the Untergang. How he killed himself and his whole family, since without National Socialism there was no longer anything to live for. The fact that Germany and the German people (his own ethnic group!) were still around didn't mean a thing to Goebbels. In fact this was never important to the Nazis in the first place. Their adulation was for Hitler and National Socialism. Germany and the German people were just expendable tools for their ideological escapades, quite as Russia was for Stalin. There was no love or respect for their ethnic group.

Likewise many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. But instead the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied.

At this point no white knight is needed. But there will be a number of black and gray knights involved. But the motor behind it will be the collectively changed zeitgeist, not any white horseman.

I like what you write about "group fantasy"; it's yet another way of putting it. I also like your blog and videos.

Geert Wilders is a sort of white horsman, and if people changed over the last decades they might change again. Presently many people are reading Spencer and Steyn. The paradigm may shift again...

Here I disagree. Wilders is no white horseman and paradigms just don't change that easily. And especially since the people you mention are deeply invested in the core beliefs of the current paradigm.

However, Wilders and Spencer are doing a great, and very important job, in greasing the machinery, to catalyze the process. Due to their honesty they are bringing up the inner contradictions of the current paradigm to the surface, helping it to gradually self-implode. In the way of their bravery they are indeed white horsemen. But they are not going to save us. Far from it. As I said: first things will have to go terribly wrong, then we can save ourselves.

Finally someone who is realistic about Wilders. I agree with everything you say, but I'm also open to a more positive scenario.

In a discussion here I refer to him as a Kerensky. I.e. his rule will be very short, but also the first step of the revolution.

But this is based on the same description of reality that you have above. Only, at the point of civil strife things can go two ways: i) Wilders government fall and the original order is restored, or ii) the revolution will be continued by people of tougher material.

In parallel to what Auster writes above about how the main obstacle for whites is not the resistance they meet but their deeply held moral beliefs, it's the same with Wilders. And not only Wilders, all of the prominent figures in the current phase of the anti-Jihad movement, as well as right-wing politicians in general. What motivates them is the hypocrisy and lack of morality on the left, so they have committed themselves to always act morally. And that simply won't work. The left is prepared to descend to any level of dirty games and brutality. In any war or struggle it all comes down to psychology, i.e. who's got the unshakable will power to win. The left has, and has always had. And that's exactly why they have won every important political struggle in the last two centuries. The right simply does not stand a chance on the political arena. The struggle has to be moved to another arena.

However! This is not a criticism of Wilder. On the contrary, he is exactly what he has to be! At this very stage he's the best "tool" available. Yes, the whole point is that he is committed to the core beliefs of the current paradigm, that he's a liberal. This means that he can speak the same language as ordinary people, who are also stuck in the current paradigm (something I would not be able to do). He's the most effective symbol of the anti-Jihad movement we could have at this point.

We know my Great-great-Grandmother read and taught Runic divination and Norse mythology. ...has enabled us to ensure that we are following the tradition in the same way as our ancestors did, right back to Volkswanderung times and beyond.

Hey FT, stick to these traditions! Even make as careful notes as you can (one easily forget or mix things up, even when thinking one would remember). Interview any living noid in your family!

We will need this stuff later in in this century when there will come a strong movement for reconstruction of Theodism. It's fantastic that you have an unbroken lineage so far back for our authentic culture.

Surely, an obviously, the reconstructed Germanic Folk Religion will not be a copy of the original Germanic Custom, but it will take much inspiration from there. And considering the lack of written sources, you might be sitting on a treasure.

If you want to discuss the issue with me, send an email. You find my email address through my blog.

I know people think such a reconstruction is impossible and don't take it seriously. But once again, let's learn from history instead of staying in the present-time bubble. Look e.g. at the reconstruction of Israel. Hebrew had been gone as the language of the Jews for some 2000 years (even Jesus didn't speak Hebrew!). But well, as we know it was reconstructed. If only the will power is there! And Theodism is very close to us in time in comparison. E.g. in Sweden it was not until mid-13th century that Christianity brutally crushed our Theodism.

I had written:Their adulation was for Hitler and National Socialism. Germany and the German people were just expendable tools for their ideological escapades, quite as Russia was for Stalin.

Funny thing. In the liberal mindset, the Muslims are seen as the first victims of Islam (for those liberals who's woken up about Islam). But the Germans are never seen as the first victims of National Socialism, even though the situations are exactly parallel. Instead ethnic Germans get demonized (and by extension all people of European descent).

These sort of things are at the very fundament of the current paradigm. And it's not until these knots are untied that the paradigm can fall over. People think that they can get anywhere with combining an anti-Islam position with hate/despise/fear of Germans, in accordance with the great mythological narrative since WWII, that our current paradigm is built upon. They can't. By their hate/despise/fear of Germans their feet are still firmly stuck in the mud of the current paradigm. And furthermore, hate of Germans is the blueprint for hate of white people in general in this prevailing mythology. So by continuing to hate/despise/fear Germans, the Westerners continue to gravitate towards white guilt and self-hate. These myths strike people at the sub-conscious level, which makes them defenseless against this gravity. It's not until the Westerners thoroughly revise their view on WWII that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.

If Wilders totally reverses his policies on Muslim immigration and Turkey after his election, just as Sarkozy did, then I will surmise that there are policies in play, that only a very select few are privy to, and he has become privy to them.

I will also surmise that this is The Big Game we are playing again, with the USA, UK, NATO, Australia and NZ on one side, with the Islamic world at stake. In this game the stated objectives are merely words, and have no semblance to reality. Even the claims of victory are false, for we know not what is regarded as victory. If that is the case- Enjoy the ride, as democratic changes in political power in any Western country, will have no effect on the war.

Conservative Swede: The left is prepared to descend to any level of dirty games and brutality. In any war or struggle it all comes down to psychology, i.e. who's got the unshakable will power to win.

The fact that the Left is known to be full of dirty tricks, is already a defeat for them.

I always had a deep admiration of politicians such Reagan, for they pretended to be good old bumbling Uncle Ron, but defeated the machinations of the Soviets. Never underestimate political dirty tricks, particularly from those who seem so innocent, and will eny all knowledge of them.

CS wrote "Another trauma is required for this to take place".

That would be the seismic event that changes the current zeitgeist overnight.

What I find it most shocking is that the most beautiful specimens of Homo sapiens, such as the English roses, are breeding below the replacement level while, at the same time, the West imports masses of non Caucasians into its lands. This is enough trauma for me and Auster—but apparently not for the native European, American or GoV commenter. Why?

Self-identity starts with one’s own phenotype; and therefore our main instinct ought to be preserving our genotype. Will Durant wrote that nations are born stoic and die epicureans. Today’s typical epicurean Westerner apparently gives a damn for the elementals of self-esteem and self-image: the Caucasian phenotype of our stoic forefathers.

Isn’t the most beautiful race the one that gives birth to the Germanic and Nordic women and the American (Maxfield Parrish’s) “nymphs on the rocks”? Plato wrote that Eros is the dialectic force. If the core of self-identity is no longer our driving force, we are in deep trouble. Unlike Fjordman, most GoV and Spencer commenters are extremely afraid to touch the race issue (in the case of Spencer I can understand it: mentioning race would be political suicide).

“It's not until the Westerners thoroughly revise their view on WWII that a change of paradigms can take place. Another trauma is required for this to take place.” - Conservative Swede

The future extinction of blondes is enough trauma for me! With the exception of the Holocaust, a subject that current scholarship has it right, yes: Westerners should revise their view on WWII. I find it maddening that they aren’t seeing their women’s beauty to the point of craving for a fourth Reich that, while totally purged from anti-Semitic sentiment, conquers Arabia and maintains both the mystique of the German nation and their phenotype. If subliminal Eros is no longer our dialectic force (again, think of Parrish’s paintings which appeared in every American home in the 1940s) we are, psychogenically speaking, already dead.

If the core of self-identity is no longer our driving force, we are in deep trouble.

Correct.

The future extinction of blondes is enough trauma for me!

The future extinction of blondes and a trauma like a world war, or even the fall of the Western Christian civilization, are two very different things. We already had a few world wars, and no extinction. So the next trauma should be welcomed -- it won't mean the extinction of blondes, instead it will mean the turning point.

While I found your first comment very good, I now have trouble in finding a coherent line in your two latest comments. They seem to go in all directions.

If Wilders totally reverses his policies on Muslim immigration and Turkey after his election, just as Sarkozy did.

Sarkozy had to reverse his positions -- which were blatantly contradiction in the first place anyway -- since in France (due to the phenomenon of French elitism) one has to find acceptance from the elite, otherwise one is nobody. So Sarkozy did that.

Wilders won't change on these positions. And you should have followed Sarkozy better before the election. Unlike Wilders he never said these things in a way that would make a sober person believe he really meant it anyway. He was just out for fishing votes from the "far right".

The fact that the Left is known to be full of dirty tricks, is already a defeat for them.

This hasn't stopped them the last two centuries.

I find this comment of yours strange. It's as if you are hoping for that magically the true face of the Left will come as a revelation to people, and that they will then suddenly denounce them.

I always had a deep admiration of politicians such Reagan, for they pretended to be good old bumbling Uncle Ron, but defeated the machinations of the Soviets. Never underestimate political dirty tricks, particularly from those who seem so innocent, and will eny all knowledge of them.

This is not even of the same level. I'm sure he had some good tricks up his sleeve. But could he have decided the course of his country without having been elected? Of course not, he had no such abilities. This is what the Left manages to do, however. You seem to be vastly underestimating the Left, or is it that you are overestimating Reagan?

Chechar:"What I find it most shocking is that the most beautiful specimens of Homo sapiens, such as the English roses, are breeding below the replacement level while."

What is tragic is that a person after person after person after person (all white people, of course) tells me with a beautific smile on (usually her) lips: "the future world will be brown, and that is a beautiful thing." When I carefully ask (because you have to be very carefull these days asking these questions):"and are you OK with this," the answer is invariably, "yes, I am totally fine with this - the new brown human being will be beautiful (because race-mixing is very healthy), and this will, as well, put an end to racism, hatred, and violence." When I hear this, I despair. Can you save people who don't care about being saved? How is it even possible to create this new suicidal breed? Why am I different then? My parents didn't lecture me on the merits of race preservation.

Folks, you are indeed heavyweights!I wish I could read anything as interesting and inspiring 20 years ago.The Zeitgeist is definitely changing.O, praised be the wonders of information technology! From Poland with love!

"What is tragic is that a person after person after person after person (all white people, of course) tells me"

I am shocked. Do most people in your country believe this?

That's why I'll try, if the Baron allows me, to publish my stuff on the whys of self-hatred. If what you say is true, anti-white racism is becoming a religion for whites (even Bill Clinton is an anti-white bastard!).

And that's why, paradoxically, I welcome Islamization: these brutes might serve as catalysts for the big paradigm shift against Islam and anti-white racism that Auster and I are most concerned about.

I've heard this many, many times from people in Sweden and the U.S. But I do certainly hope that it is the minority that has acquired this scary belief. How does one find out the real number, anyway? I have a feeling that it's mostly educated people in big cities who don't mind being replaced. I get a sense that there are more women than men among them.

Don't be intimidated by them. The one word open shut case and unanswerable riposte to these reconstructed race supremacists is this: Mexico. The Mexican ethnos is a mix of black, white, and American Indian/Asian and it doesn't seem to have resulted in a utopia.

South America in general is like that.

Even on their own terms "mixtopians" are clutching at straws. It remains to be seen how much of an effect this will have on our civilisational struggle for self-determination.

"Yes, modern Europe is so secularized that it has largely overwhelmed the positivistic aspects of its previously Christian culture. However, that in no way disincludes the overwhelming influence―for good or bad―of the compassionate and worthy Social Contract enbued into said European culture by its Christian heritage."

Absolutely correct. However, my point was that if a culture is disconnected from its roots, how is it to survive? We must reconnect Western Culture to its roots (over the opposition of the Leftists) if we are to survive.

Zenster also said

“How often I have lamented that America and the Multinational Forces did not impost harsh military dictatorships upon the newly liberated countries―complete with night time curfews and shoot-on-sight policies for violators―such that three generations later, inhabitants might be released from their Islamic thrall.”

When I wrote the comment, I was thinking about the period of time from the 1920’s and wound down in the 1960’s. We removed a secular brutal thug dictator in Iraq– Sadaam Hussein. But it needn’t be that harsh—Let me tell you about British Imperialism, Mid-Victorian Style. This has to do with the fact that Britain ruled India, and discovered the “exotic custom” of widow burning by the Hindus. When the British moved to STOP said “exotic custom”, the Hindus caterwauled “Suttee is our custom!” Here is the response of the British general, General Sir Charles Napier—

“You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

The ‘exotic custom’ of suttee stopped. I wonder if you think the mid-Victorians had a good idea (it has been done before—it can be done again. Tell me what you think of General Napier’s Modus Operendi.

Instead of Victorian imperialism, we have the “anthropological green movement”, Instead of “save the Whales” the cry is “save the ‘exotic customs’ of non-western cultures from extinction”. How does this impact “human rights”?

Have you noticed that “human rights” (to the Left) has become a CLUB to beat the living daylights out of Western Culture, nothing more and nothing less? Well, you see, the Left thinks, “it’s a shame that we have only narrow and rigid interpretations of human rights given to us by Westerners STEEPED in colonialism and Western Imperialism. If ONLY we had a non-western guide to interpret human rights, we would achieve justice and equality for all.” The Islamists come and say, “Hey, Shariah is NON-Western, and we believe that it would be a perfect guide to properly interpreting human rights.”

The Leftists say, “How wonderful! With this non-western guide (Shariah) to interpret human rights, we will be sure to achieve justice and equality for all (since we have eliminated 'Western Imperialism'). After all, every road that eliminates 'Western imperialism' must lead to utopia”

With this kind of ‘thinking’, that Simon Hughes’ (that MP posted on a few days ago) actions become “logical”. So much for “rationality” on the Left.

Please understand how seriously the Leftist have gotten us into trouble!!

Watching Eagle: This has to do with the fact that Britain ruled India, and discovered the “exotic custom” of widow burning by the Hindus. When the British moved to STOP said “exotic custom”, the Hindus caterwauled “Suttee is our custom!” Here is the response of the British general, General Sir Charles Napier—.

Do you mean this?

Zenster said... ”You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”.

Most of our kids won't be confronting us with "what did you allow to happen" as they have been indoctrinated by the public school system from kindergarten through university to look on all minorities as their equals or preferably superior (as white people have been "evil"). It's Orwell's "four legs good, two legs bad all over again.

All the little white liberal "children" even if their chronological age is adult will be playing and sharing happily until they become the minority (already so in major cities) and as power shifts the rules are changed and the new white minority finds that there are no non-white majorities anywhere in the world who treat their minorities with the decency that whites treated minorities, not a single one that gives them even equal rights under the law.

[Instead of “save the Whales” the cry is “save the ‘exotic customs’ of non-western cultures from extinction”. How does this impact “human rights”?]

Let's see now. Foreign cultures are allowed to keep their home countries if not monocultural, then certainly not mongrelized into multicultural. So there are over a billion Chinese masters of their domain, over a billion East Indians, over a billion Muslims etc. Africa is completely for blacks. South and Central America are reserved for Latinos.

Not much danger of any of THEIR cultures being extinguished. The only one that must suffer the onslaught of disapproval, dilution and suppression of its own pride and customs is white European culture.

"Multiculturalism" turns out to be cultural genocide for white Europeans who have been amazingly slow on the uptake.

Have to agree with Zenster's comments that jokes about Islam make piss poor weapons against the nuclear ones Iran is racing to get.

Muslims are an existential enemy the like of which we have never encountered because as Zenster points out above, they have nothing to lose except their lives and they don't value those much either.

In fact, most Muslims live such wretched lives they think an early death is preferable to get at all those virgins unavailable to them on this earth. It's still unclear what the women expect in heaven, maybe just the end of their slavery to men on earth.

"could he (Reagan) have decided the course of his country without having been elected? Of course not, he had no such abilities. This is what the Left manages to do, however. You seem to be vastly underestimating the Left,"

This is key to understanding how the Left has been able to sap every major Western institution. They are RELENTLESS. They make beach heads in all communications organs and enlarge from there. As we've discussed before, they take over government bureaucracies and keep advancing a leftist agenda regardless of whether elected government is nominally conservative (all initiatives sabotaged by thousands in thousands of ways) or leftist (full speed ahead as we're seeing in the US now).

Look at how the clown Al Franken became senator. He lost the election. But the Left never says die. The Democrat machine went after recount after recount with Acorn type illegalities all along the way. The Republicans stood and watched this like idiots instead of fighting back. They do not know how to counter people willing to go deep in the muck.

Zenster:"1.) Why is there such a deep divide between European and Islamic populations?‪""2.) What is responsible for both that divide and its astonishing width or depth?‪""3.) Upon whom is it incumbent to strive towards eliminating that divide?‪"

I agree substantially with what you say. But I dispute the relevance. What matters is what can be done about the situation, not whose fault is it that we are here.

1.) I agree that the reason there is such a divide between European populations and Islamic ones is largely because of Islamic separatism. This is more than just "birds of a feather" (Islamic law, Islamic courts, Islamic boy scouts, Islamic police).

2.). I tend to agree with you. Why join something if it is anathema? I don’t join a club in the expectation that it will change its rules. I remember Kofi Annan criticising European society for failing to adjust to its new bodies of immigrants. I couldn't help thinking that it is the job of the incomer to adjust to the society he chooses to move to.

3.). “Upon whom is it incumbent to strive towards eliminating that divide?‪” It may not be your and my fault that the divide has arisen, but that doesn’t mean we can’t search for ways to resolve it that don’t break civil society.

The point is not to apportion blame. The point is to work out what we can do with the situation as it is.

Don't hate your enemy! It clouds your judgment, ruins your peace of mind, and more or less guarantees that you will lose. You have to be able to think in this situation, and you can't do that if you're outraged e.g. by the pointless activity of debating the absurd Solkhar. Thinking calmly isn't a sign of weakness - it is essential, and the hallmark of the person who cares about the issue as opposed to wanting to retaliate.

The reason the European/Islamic divide is so damaging is because it could break the system into a welter of violence. I don't think there will be an islamic takeover because I think there will be lethal conflict before then.

If you think that is solution then you might as well put your feet up and play lotto for the next 20-30 years, because that is what is likely to develop. Europe has a history of ethnic violence, including genocide, and the pieces seem to be in place for that to be especially bad this time around. I don’t think the danger is that Europeans will not be violent enough, but that they will be too violent.

The question is then whether this is the best method, or whether there are better methods that can do the job.

Let’s forget for a moment about the suffering of the targets of ethnic cleansing and genocide. These methods are still harmful, because of the damage they do to the society inflicting them. Investment pulls out, the economy collapses, you’re lucky if the taps run, power supplies become erratic, law and order cease, and medical care becomes rudimentary. And you can forget about democracy: brutal dictators and brutal warlords rise. And the more brutal the more successful, because ordinary people will be drawn to them for protection against the tide of crime and disorder.

This prospect is exacerbated by the problems of fiscal collapse, and the problems of welfare dependent populations amid welfare breakdown.

Do you expect western culture to flourish in such conditions?

And then you will find the brute hard to get rid of. The sort of people who can carry out ethnic cleansing/genocide won’t just go away once they have done the dirty work. Much more likely to turn that power onto a new target. Once you switch on the violence, it becomes hard to switch it off again.

And then you’re stuck with the long-term scars. It is naïve to expect everyone to forget about it and move on. E.g. Germany in respect of the holocaust, Turkey in respect of the Armenians, or China in respect of Tibet.

And do you think such methods will work? Can you force people to see it through? How do you prevent people losing stomach for it halfway?

You may feel that such violent anomie is worth it. But what you can’t deny is that this prospect is so bleak as to make it incumbent on us to see if there are more stable, orderly, and peaceful ways to achieve the objective. Incumbent on those of us who believe we can see the problems racking up from here.

What is see is a situation so explosive that mainstream elites can only cope with it by insisting that everyone whistle a PC tune, because they fear the violence they are brewing up. And, on the other hand, people advocating violence out of frustration at the mainstream elites.

I don’t think it is right to accept those dire alternatives without first looking honestly for solutions that may provide something less bad.

I disagree. I remember someone who talked about “Eisenhower's hate” (sic) toward the Nazis. See the most recent GoV thread about queer, non-hating Swedish authorities. Swede soldiers recently fired Afghan enemies and yet "there will be an investigation by Swedish military authorities into the conduct of their soldiers".

The only kind of hate that is pathological is *displaced* hate (cf. what I said way above about the Nazis’ group fantasy: eliminationist anti-Semitism, a transferred hate from the abusive parents that Hitler and his willing executioners had onto *innocent* scapegoats).

But non-transferred hate on the truly guilty is most healthful and natural. New Age, traditional religions and even pop psychologists are dead wrong on the issue of confusing pathological with healthy hate.

I don't think that anger is, by definition, un-Christian or is necessarily a negative emotion in the Western system of values as it is in Buddhism. I think that the admonition not to be angry under any circumstances is a relatively new sentiment in the West, contemporaneous with the 20th century interest in Eastern philosophies. I personally believe that there is such a thing as "sacred rage" - it's a rage at injustice and the violation of God's laws.

Agreed, Félicie. If I admire Old Testament characters like Jeremiah is precisely for their capacity to articulate eloquently their hate. I use this word instead of “anger” because it’s what you feel while reading this great man and other Biblical prophets. I hate using euphemisms. ☺

But non-transferred hate on the truly guilty is most healthful and natural.

Indeed it is.

If I'm trying to generalize I think especially people of Protestant background have a problem with this. Or rather, they cannot allow themselves to hate unless its approved from authorities or the collective.

This means, the left hates what they are "supposed" to hate. The right however -- as I pointed out already above when discussing Wilders above -- loathe the ways of the left and commit themselves to act morally correct, i.e. in this case abstaining from hatred.

As you said, hate is a most natural and useful force. As I said above, any struggle or war comes down to psychology: the will power to win is what makes the whole difference between victory and defeat. And hate makes people stay committed to their will power to win. The left uses this all the time, an also always win. So to summarize, the left uses hate, they are prepared to bend any moral rule for the "higher moral good" and descend into any low level of dirty tricks and brutality, they take over the institutions to control the course of the country even if they are not in power. The right on the other hand try to play it fair, morally and in a non-hateful way. And therefore always loses.

Well, there are a few things which Protestant right-wingers feel they have approval to hate. Such as the state. Depending on the blend of right-winger, this is very common. But this is not very helpful, since they only thing they manage to achieve is to create an atomized society in concert with the left; i.e. tearing the society apart. The reason why such right-wingers feel approval to hate the state is that this concept has roots in the French Revolution -- the concept of individualism, which implies an atomized (and therefore destroyed) society -- but it is the French Revolution that is the problem in the first place. Since it's not a hate for a particular rule but the concept of a state as such, they are effectively helping the left in destroying our society, only hacking it into pieces from a different direction. In every country I have studied carefully, it has been clear that the shifting power between the left and the right has made worse effect than if the left had been in power all of the time.

Being right-wing means being fully committed to the core beliefs of the current paradigm. Unlike how it is presented the relation between left and right is not symmetrical. Instead the left is the norm, and the people to the left are the holy people of secular Christianity. The right is just dancing along, effectively not being much more than an alibi for the whole setup, dancing in circles around the left, who is the one setting up the direction of "progression". Occasionally pulling the break, but never setting up a new general course. The direction of the course is built into the paradigm, and never fundamentally questioned by the right.

Another evidence for the asymmetry between left and right is how right-wingers fear and loathe to be associated with any person or organization even slightly to the right of themselves (they feel that this would totally undermine their reputation), while they willing make connections magnitudes further into the left. Such as appearing in left-wing media, which often makes these right-wingers hilarious, since they feel they have gotten a stamp of approval thereby. While they can be paralyzed by fear of the thought of being published in a right-wing magazine just slightly to the right of themselves.

I agree with you about hate. Hate is the fuel for the fire that will burn away the hated enemy.

The fire needs to be controlled, however: aimed in the proper direction and calibrated to the right intensity to be most effective. Fuel must also be carefully conserved so that it doesn’t run out before the job is done.

This is an error that I see over and over again – people who are possessed of an admirable passion, but unable to cordon off a cool and calculating portion of their minds so that the passion can be directed most effectively towards their ends.

So many people, once they have lapsed into the heat of passionate intensity, seem unable to calculate their own best interests. In the worst-case scenario, they are destroyed by their own inability to direct their passion dispassionately!

On a related note – a week or two ago I posted a news feed item about a clinical psychology study showing that people in extremis who utter the worst and most vehement curses they can think of are able to withstand more pain than those who don’t.

Perhaps hatred acts in a similar fashion, spurring its bearer to feats of craft and endurance that he would otherwise be unable to accomplish.

America is seen as right-wing in the current political theater, however historically America together with France has been the main force in pushing our civilization to the left.

After WWII European patriotism was seen as the root of the evil, which had to be held down. The only permitted patriotisms where American and Israeli. Britain and France got away with some, but after the Suez crisis in 1956 they were effectively out of the picture too. Now offensive military actions were only accepted from America and Israel.

In the 50s and the 60s America and Israel were celebrated as model countries of progressivism. European conservatism had been rooted out in the cultural revolution imposed upon America in Western Europe. Adorno's The F-Factor describes European conservatism as a psychological pathology related to fascism. But the Europeans learned fast. First they learned to follow the American example and see America as the model country. The Europeans could pick this up fast since the ideas were rooted in the Christian gospels. But soon they learned that America didn't live up to code of moral goodness that they had imposed on the Europeans. And left-wing anti-Americanism was born. And to be precise, even anti-Americans wasn't born in Europe but also imported from the US.

The problem for America was that in their quest to end all "evil" empires, they had effectively become the big empire themselves. E.g. inheriting the role of maintaining the Pax Britannica. Then they had to do all the sort of things they had taught the Europeans were wrong. The Europeans soon learned to beat the Americans in their own game, becoming the leading in progressivism and "holier than thou". And curiously enough, thus America ended up being seen as right-wing. The original right-wing had been rooted out in a collaboration between America and the European socialists in the wake of WWII.

The turning point came by the end of the 60s -- the Vietnam war and the Six-Days war. The image of America and Israel shifted, and they were no longer seen as the model countries of progressivism, but as "evil" right-wing countries. We should remember that our progressivist paradigm (which is always going left) is based on Christian ethics. And Christian ethics means the inversion of values. So it's the weak that is considered good, while the strong is considered evil. In WWI and WWII America had defeated all the strong (and therefore evil) European empires. The job was completed in the Suez crisis in 1956 by turning against their former allies. But you can never win with Christian ethics, because now America became the strong one, and therefore the evil one.

So now American and Israeli patriotism becomes highly questioned and opposed. But not based on restoring any other patriotism, but by going even deeper into deranged progessivism. Thus, in effect, American and Israeli patriotism are still the only permitted patriotisms. Surely now the holiest priests of our leftist paradigm now condemn the actions of America and Israel. But in effect it is tolerated. While if any other (white) country acts militarily offensively it's seen as a major global crisis (e.g. Serbia, Russia).

You're almost right about "acceptable" military actions. But there are a few exceptions to the Washington-Tel Aviv Axis.

One was the Falklands War. Once it was determined that Argentina was the Evil One, then Britain's action was acceptable -- Argentina Bad, UK Good.

If the Europeans ever used their own militaries, some of their actions might be acceptable. For instance, back in the 1990s we were desperately hoping that some EC-based coalition would do what needed to be done to the Evil Serbs in Bosnia. But the Europeans were too sensible to undertake a such foolish enterprise, so it had to be NATO instead.

There are probably other exceptions, but they are all small and brief. What you say is generally true.

For example, Russian military action is never, ever seen as acceptable. Not under any circumstances, no matter what.

OK, the previous comment was for background. Now to my point about hate:

So American and Israeli patriotism are the only permitted patriotisms. Surely they are now fiercely opposed by the highest priesthood of progressivism, but nevertheless they remain the only accepted ones within our paradigm.

So this gives a background to why Wilders, Vlaams Belang, etc. have a pro-American and pro-Israeli profile, and even stress these patriotisms more than their own.

So far I'm fine with that. Just because it has to be so. As I pointed out above: Wilders is exactly what he has to be (in this stage).

But here comes the problem. When the threat of Islam is added to the historical situation I gave above, there are Westerners who wake up from their deranged progressivism. But they generally revert back to the 50s (myself I reverted to before WWI). In the face of the Islamic aggression their patriotism gets heightened. But this is a patriotism based on a narrative based on hate of Germany and Russia. So when intensifying this American patriotism in order to build-up the necessary hate against Islam, the hate against Russia and Germany heightens simultaneously. There does not seem to be a way to slide this parameter up without this happening. NATO was after all built on the motto of "Keeping Russia out, Germany down, and America in." And since this narrative in its previous step is based on delegitimization of European patriotism in general, and how hate and demonization of Germans is the blueprint for white guilt and self-hatred, we have a more general problem here too.

Not all people awakened react like this. But even the people that don't, they stay within the frames of the permitted patriotisms (as described for Wilders above), and therefore find no basis to effectively oppose the belligerent types, when they intensify their hate against Russia, Germans, etc.

One example is Ariel Eldad, who is a close ally of Wilders. When Angela Merkel visited the Knesset, Eldad staged a protest (together with others) refusing to set foot in the Knesset while Merkel was there. The motivation for this was entirely because of her German ethnicity. And yes, I have a problem with this sort of attitude, for the same reason that I have a problem with David Duke. Eldad would never act the same way towards an Arab because of his ethnicity, even though a congruent case can be made. The reason is that in our paradigm, hatred of Germans (for being Germans) is permitted, while hatred of Arabs (for being Arabs) is not.

We like Ariel Eldad, and his type, since he speaks forcefully and with great confidence about the threat of Islam. Listening to that animates us, and builds hope. But this confidence is built on a sort of patriotism which intensify hatred of Germans (Eldad was one of the few who staged a protest against Merkel) and belligerence against Russia (we see more of that from Americans with a heightened cockerel comb of patriotism).

And for the reasons I described above these sort of strong voices come exclusively from America and Israel (no one else would be allowed according to the paradigm). And for the same reason, the people in the anti-Jihad network who do not descend into this sort of destructive hatred and belligerence, do not voice any strong objections against it, and mostly no objections at all.

Europeans cannot speak like this, but instead we see e.g. Wilders aligning himself with these sort of strong American and Israeli patriotic voices.

My point is that the front line of the current stage of the anti-Jihad movement is therefore full of inner contradictions. This is why Wilders, even under the best conditions, can never be anything more than a Kerensky. A rule of Wilders or his kind will succumb from its inner contradictions. Nevertheless, I consider this a necessary step, as a way of lockpicking our current paradigm.

Eldad and his kind (in America and Israel), while being good battering rams at this point, are obviously not of any help at all when it comes to saving Europe. Instead their confidence is based on a sort of patriotism that is originally all against European patriotism and confidence in the first place.

But it didn't stop, not really. It just became less visible in the regions of India that were under British jurisdiction.

To take a well-known fictional example, think of the passage in Around the World in Eight Days where Phileas Fogg rescues the Princess. He is rescuing her from being burned in a suttee ritual. That novel was published in 1873. So Jules Verne and his public were aware that suttee was still (unofficially) practised in India.

To take a Christian example, which is somewhat analagous, the British attempted to outlaw the practice of Catholicism and Presbyterianism in Ireland after the English Reformation. The Penal Laws (as they were called) had no real effect. Virtually everyone held to their banned denominations in secrecy.

Or consider the early Christian in ancient Rome who hid in the Catacombs rather than worship Caesar.

This is why I am very sceptical about gesture politics such as banning the burqa in France. Without voluntary repatriation, religious customs will endure - especially among the Muslim fundamentalists.

You're almost right about "acceptable" military actions. But there are a few exceptions to the Washington-Tel Aviv Axis.

One was the Falklands War.

Yes, I was going to bring that up, but my text was very long as it was. And since it doesn't change the general picture.

Anyway, I'll give you another example straight away. French troops in the Ivory Coast a few years ago.

As I described above, France and Britain hold a slightly more privileged position in this setup. Having been the allies of America in WWII. Not being delegitimized until 1956. Thus under certain conditions they are allowed to operate in a very restrictive sphere of remnants of their former colonial empires. But of course only with approval from America. Falkland can be OK (if a list of requirements are fulfilled). But India would never be OK, obviously.

France and Britain were once shining examples of Enlightenment progressivism. But when America emerged as the greatest power, no one could match her as the beacon of egalitarian progressivism. After all France and Britain had been colonial powers, so they just had to fade away. Consider that the superpower of the world (America) had once been a colony itself! There was no longer any legitimacy for France and Britain. But nevertheless, due to the background described above, they are considered much more benevolent and not at all as dangerous as Russia and Germany. Thus we can find these small exceptions to the general picture. But it does not change the general picture.

Britain and France started off as allies of America. They even set up NATO together. Many Brits still consider America as an ally, and NATO as something good for British interests. They are wrong of course. The whole process was bound to mean the end of Britain and France as great powers, and even for proper patriotism.

I would say France would get away with more than Britain. For the same sort of reasons that Italy gets away with more (not in military actions but in political actions). For being charming and incomprehensible, and for not being Protestants (yes there is a hierarchy in the scheme of white hate too).

If the Europeans ever used their own militaries, some of their actions might be acceptable.

Yes, EU actions can be acceptable. Exactly since the EU is not based on any European patriotism, but precisely the opposite of European patriotism.

Also, there's not such a big difference between the EU and NATO. In fact, exactly since the EU does not have any military power of significance, its power rest on the shoulder of NATO (that's why I'm baffled when people are against the EU but in favour of NATO -- they are in symbiosis!)

For example, Russian military action is never, ever seen as acceptable. Not under any circumstances, no matter what.

Please let's not get sidetracked down the interesting psycho-ethical question, which I introduced, about whether anger is good, to what extent, how it is graded. etc.

The thing I want people to do is to *think*. To take a step back and evaluate.

What is likely to happen? Is it beneficial? Are there realistic alternatives?

The Baron said: "people who are possessed of an admirable passion, but unable to cordon off a cool and calculating portion of their minds so that the passion can be directed most effectively towards their ends".

I agree with this. I wish anti-Jihadist would think before responding.

Don't let the effrontery of Islamic demands, and the craven repressiveness of mainstream elites, choose your reaction for you. And if this is your reaction now, just think how much stronger the reaction of less insightful millions will be after 20 more years of the same! There will likely be enough anger even if you were so overcome with moderation as to be able to generate any!

It is OK to step back and consider - Will ethnic cleansing/genocide really be as satisfying as all that? Will it have serious side effects that I want to avoid? Is there a way to cure the problem without those side-effects?

I'm sure researchers can take this view towards medical cures. Is there any reason not to do so in the case of the Islamification of the west?

So far, what I detect on these questions, is an unwillingness to address them because they are awkward, and because indignation are currently so much more satisfying. Actually the unwillingness to discuss these issues mirrors that of the liberal elite.

This is harsh criticism, I know. But you are better than western elites, and your thinking should reflect that!

Ian Smith, in his autobiography, describes American and Russian foreign policy towards Africa during the Cold War as a kind of two-step trick.

The Americans would forcibly decolonise African countries controlled by European powers (the Congo, Zimbabwae), pronounce them free and then leave. Then the Soviets would swoop in and turn the newly 'freed' countries into KGB client states. Smith charged the Americans with being naive.

I personally agree with the decolonisation policies but there should have been tighter restrictions on political parties i.e. no Communists allowed. Mugabe should not have been allowed to run for office, instead of which he was insisted on.

There are two points to be made. And for the purpose of this let's see hate as a tool:

1. Is it sinful to use hate as a tool? No! (this was covered in my exchange with Chechar)

2. Now to the practical side of it, which you covered. Is it always practical to use hate as a tool? No it's not always practical. Typically it does not make sense to build up hate in a situation where you have nowhere to direct it.

So in this sense the fire needs to be controlled. But on the other hand, once the conditions are right, and the matter is truly about survival, then it can be useful to use the hate full throttle. Because if your enemy is more passionate they will win. So for the purpose of that it is good to have clarified that hatred is not sinful.

So many people, once they have lapsed into the heat of passionate intensity, seem unable to calculate their own best interests. In the worst-case scenario, they are destroyed by their own inability to direct their passion dispassionately!

Yes this is also true.

In fact, fire is a very good analogy for hatred. It's both powerful and dangerous. So make sure it's dangerous for your enemy and not for yourself.

Yes, Con Swede: the West was healthy at the beginning of the 20th century, before the first World War started to mess our Weltanschauung compass.

The hate that leftists feel is also a transferred hate. Karl Kraus used to made political points in his magazine by analyzing concrete people. Presently I’m in Europe, and in the future I might write an essay about concrete persons I know here who are extreme leftists and abhor the counter-jihad movement. My point: since I am a sort of intuitive psychologist, and since I know these persons’ childhood traumas, my working hypothesis is that like Hitler and his willing executioners (cf. what I said way above) they are transferring what they unconsciously feel of their childrearing methods onto the society, which is why they want to destroy it. In other words, their hateful feeling toward the West, the current group fantasy in which society allows us to artificially direct our hate (cf. Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate”) is equivalent to the hatred the willing executioners felt toward the Jews.

That’s pathological hate. But the hate that Jeremiah felt about Baal and child sacrifice, as well as the hate you, the Baron, I and other GoV commenters feel toward those who have betrayed our culture, is not only legitimate but as necessary as the energy that moves a nuclear plant. Without this healthful hate we become one of those epicurean, decadent, hedonistic Westerners who know nothing of Roman severitas: the spirit we badly need in present times.

* “[Hate] is both powerful and dangerous.” – C Swede

It’s like atomic energy. You don’t want to mess with it and have a Chernobyl catastrophe. But using hate well you have none other than the peak of Judeo Christian tradition: the hate passages in both the old and new testaments.

No Chechar, my analysis is not that the actions of the left-wing originates in hate. This is what I wrote in my blog two years ago:

This is the fundamental error by the right-wing. They truly believe that the left-wingers want to destroy our civilization, want to be dhimmified, etc. But this is not what the left-wing perceive themselves as doing. They see themselves as maximizing goodness. And we're talking Christian goodness here, 'cause the Left is all about Christian ethics.

What the left-wing is doing is not destroying Western civilization, but completing/fulfilling it. What I call "The Finish of the West".

Of course, Con Swede: there is more than one driving force. But even Hitler had more than one driving force besides his (pathological) hatred of the Jews.

What stoke me the most in 1996, when I read Mein Kampf, is that at eighteen Hitler was not anti-Semitic. While he already was an ultra-nationalist, in his book he says that in his middle teens he was embarrassed of anti-Semitism. And his admiration of Wagner and other aspects of his culture were of course legitimate (as was legitimate his hateful remarks against African immigration into Germany that “bastardize the Aryan race”). What by following the trends of German nationalists, after his teens, became pathologically projective, as Alice Miller has demonstrated, is his (displaced) hatred of “Jewry”.

It is easy for me to separate the two aspects of Hitler’s mind. Not only displaced hatred was his drive but a positive appreciation of art and social engineering as well. Do you remember the face full of awe of that photo of Hitler in Paris, besides Mussolini, contemplating art in a museum (in contrast, Mussolini had a wry face)? Both a positive loving drive for European culture and a pathological displacement against “Jewry” were his drives.

I believe it’s the same with the Left. It’s easier to analyze what you call the Left’s finish of the West. On the other hand, childrearing etiology of displaced hate is such a taboo subject that no one studies it in the academia.

Please let's not get sidetracked down the interesting psycho-ethical question, which I introduced, about whether anger is good, to what extent, how it is graded. etc.

This isn’t a sidetrack, this is the main track. Whenever we have serious discussions here, whether it is Fjordman, Conservative Swede, El Inglés, or any of the others doing the talking, we are looking at a constellation of issues that rotate around these basic psycho-ethical questions.

The current paradigm is a psycho-ethical structure that prevents our formerly Christian civilization from taking action that will allow it to save itself. This paradigm is at the moment in the process of slow-motion self-destruction, and the pace may soon accelerate so that the old framework will crumble quite rapidly. As you wrote in your post, the collapse of the welfare state will soon be upon us, and that is the absolute limiting factor for the Liberal paradigm. In another generation – max – we will either discover a different paradigm, or be in the midst of some sort of paradigm-less chaos.

It’s very, very difficult for intelligent and well-educated people to find a forum in which this crisis – the imminent end of post-Enlightenment Western civilization – can be discussed frankly and civilly. We are airing ideas here that earn us the “racist” and “fascist” sobriquets, just because we aim to get at the heart of what went wrong and what can possibly be done to ameliorate the worst effects of the coming changes.

Questioning the sandy foundation on which this immense and ornate castle has been built is simply not done. That’s why all of us here are loners and misfits of one sort or another, and not on government or university payrolls – at least not under the names that are displayed with our posts.

We don’t have much time. I used to think that if enough grassroots organizing could be accomplished, there might be a way to stave off the worst. But in the last three years the polarization has only gotten more extreme, so that the PC/MC crowd are accelerating the bus towards the edge of the cliff while conservatives hide under the seats in fear of being labeled “Nazis”. What debate there is among those on the right is more often concerned with doctrinal purity than it is with hammering together a compromise and a coalition that might actually have even a remote chance of making a difference.

So what we will have to concentrate on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne, a networked sanctuary where what is good and valuable can be stored and kept for use in a future time after the chaos is over – if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

'This is an interesting theory. Are you referring to Maslow's pyramid? What you are saying has psychological veracity. ...

'But let me be a devil's advocate. Why wouldn't the same logic work for previous governments or previous socio-economic formations, to use Marxian terms? Isn't it true that the elite has always been privileged and out of touch with reality (always in the realm of "self-actualization" rather than survival)? So how is today's situation different?'

Excellent questions are most important, for they force the finding of the right answers. I hope that the fellow GOV contributors will ask many more excellent questions.

First, I am referring to Maslow's pyramid, but in a different way. Maslow thought of his theory ONLY in terms of individuals. I am taking the theory and applying it on the class and societal levels to explain the development and life cycle of civilizations (which may mean that I boldy go where no one has gone before). My explanations are much broader than Chechar, and I aim to re-examine many things to get outside 'the bubble'. The analysis applies to other civilizations in addition to Western Civilization.

Now to the great questions asked.

The first point is that the West has a terrible ignorance about history. As to previous governments/socio-economic formations, what about the civilizations of Babylon, Maya, Inca, Greece, Rome, Carthage, etc.? Why are they NOT more advanced than we (they started sooner)? In point of fact, their civilizations are GONE. Why? I applied the Societal Hierachy Of Needs theory to them too. These civilizations crashed because their leaders cast away discipline and responsibility, and refused to face the real societal problems they faced (it was too much work, and they thought things would be all right no matter what they did). The answer to the first question is that my theory does consider and, I submit, explain why previous civilizations fell.

The second question, about the elite being out of touch with reality, is a good one, because it shows the false assumptions in the West today. First, not all self-actualization is BAD. It is when people refuse to care about survival needs (and undermine the disciplines needed to successfully carry them out) to futher their own self-actualization that the quest for self-actualization becomes harmful, and if not corrected, terminal to the civilization. A society can have many disfunctionalities and still survive, but there is a limit to how far the denial of reality can go, before the civilization collapses.

We in the West have a lack of historical understanding, so we think that things have always been the way they are now (or can't be the same way [that they were centuries ago] again).

The quick answer to the second question is that in more marginal societies, (hunter/gatherer, agraian, monarchial, or even sometimes industrial) elites do not have unbounded concerns for self-actualization to be preoccupied with. They had realities to face. Also, there is the question of what the masses of society would tolerate.

1)One can deny reality, but one cannot escape the consequences.-- Ayn Rand

The final question, "how is today's situation different?", is best answered by explaining that denial of reality (perverse pursuit of self-actualization] is a matter of degree. Maybe this will help-- think of events, such as the islamization of the West, that even the most liberal of liberals would not have forseen 20-40 years ago. People would never have tolerated things then that routinely happen today. When problems compound beyond a certain limit, civilization collapses.

1) an advanced technological society can deny reality (its real problems) and live a lifestyle that seems "normal" for much longer than, say, a hunter/gatherer or agraian society-- Consequences are delayed more.

2)The greater the denial of reality (of the struggle for survival) the harder the Civilization will fall (after it reaches the tipping point)

Today's situation is different from Most periods in History because the "governing class" have never experienced the struggle for survival, and thus think that there (personally desireable) actions can have no adverse consequences. (It is very similar to the periods of History right before other great civilizations fell.

I hope this answers your questions. Hopefully, you will have more good questions about the Societal Hiearchy of Needs.

This is an essay I wrote before, explaining the West's lack of knowledge of History. I republish it to help people see a different approach to history.

Two Views of the Time Continumm--

"We measure dates by events, not events by dates"

Quote from an African man in the movie "Sahara"

In previous posts, I have alluded to Western lack of knowledge of history, compared to muslims. I now discuss two methods of VIEWING TIME AND HISTORY-- One Western, THE OTHER NON-WESTERN.

First, the western view of time and history-- It could be called the LINEAR CHRONOLOGICAL VIEW of time. It is believed TO BE derived from the Greeks. This Western view considers TIME AND HISTORY to be A Flowing 'CHAIN' OF 'FILE BOXES' OF YEARS. We westerners think of a year (decade, century, etc.) and dump all the events that happened in that year into the 'file box' of that year. We assume that events are basically determined and located by the year. History runs together in a (somewhat jumbled) catalog of events based on the years. The most important questions of this approach to time and history are WHEN? AND, WHAT YEAR?

However, many cultures (middle eastern and far Eastern among them) HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF HOW TO MEASURE TIME AND HISTORY. IT COULD BE CALLED the EVENT RELATION VIEW OF HISTORY. In this view, time is like a pond, and TIME AND HISTORY are measured BASED ON THE EVENTS THAT OCCUR AND THE SIMILARITY OF THE EVENTS (LIKE ROCKS FALLING INTO THE POND). iN THE CASE OF A ROCK SKIPPING ACROSS THE POND MULTIPLE TIMES, THE "TIMES"[events] ARE CONSIDERED RELATED EVEN IF THEY ARE FAR APART [different years, decades, centuries]. The FOCUS IS ON CYCLES AND PATTERNS OF EVENTS rather than dates. Thus, "soon" can mean "similar" in the Event Relation view of time and history. The most important questions for this approach are What? and How?

The lineral Chronological [western] view of time[ Events by Dates] makes it easy to find the year. The event relation view of time [Dates by Events] makes it easier to see the "big picture" of history.

Both views of time are helpful and important. But by not knowing of the Event Relation view of Time and History, Westerners have difficulty understanding how history "repeats itself" or "Rhymes".

Westerners may say "Mohammed lived 14 Centuries ago," and muslims can say, "that was recent, and is so relevant to today". Westerners say, "huh?" But what non-westerners mean by the statement is that the events are similar, and that history is repeating itself.

True history is acquired experience from others. A Chinese maxim says "Trouble brings experience, and experience brings wisdom". Both approaches are needed to understand history.

The weakness of the linear chronological (western) view is that one thinks that a certain event "can't happen in this (year, decade, century)," if it is unrelated to recent personal experience. This makes history out-of-date and irrelevant to Westerners.

One must also realize that certain years mean different events to different cultures (1912, for example, is different to Chinese than to Westerners or Africans, etc.)

When using the Event Relation view, one can compare current events and civilizations with previous events and civilizations. This allows other people's experience to be acquired from history.

When westerners say, "you don't know what Century you are living in," they mean "this can't happen, because it doesn't relate to our recent experience." When muslims answer back, "No, YOU don't know what century you are living in," they mean "we see the pattern of events in your civilization and ours, see that the events are going to repeat themselves".

Dates DO NOT PREVENT certain events from happening, which is why one msut understand both approaches to time and history.

Baron said: “In another generation – max – we will either discover a different paradigm, or be in the midst of some sort of paradigm-less chaos.”

I agree. And I agree that it is a new paradigm that is needed, not just policy adjustments a la Melanie Phillips or The Centre for Social Cohesion.

I would like to see more discussion of what the alternative setup (“paradigm”) should be, including realistic assessments of what the available options are and what all their effects will be.

I don’t think we can hope to stumble on a solution, or that something will turn up, and I know that isn’t what you’re saying. If we let things take their course, we will see fiscal breakdown, welfare collapse (disastrous for a welfare dependent continent) and large scale ethnic violence. As some of the few who can still think, as opposed to wearing PC credentials, the people on here are in the rare position of being able to reflect on whether that is OK. Or whether something better can be built.

Baron said: “We are airing ideas here that earn us the “racist” and “fascist” sobriquets, just because we aim to get at the heart of what went wrong and what can possibly be done to ameliorate the worst effects of the coming changes.”

Which is why I’d like people to take advantage of the freedom, by looking harder at what can be done, rather than expressing the wish to retaliate. I see too much unfocused aggression, occasionally as a way to avoid reflection and analysis. Now is the time for reflection, even if you feel too angry for it.

Baron said: “Questioning the sandy foundation on which this immense and ornate castle has been built is simply not done.”

I agree. It’s infuriating. That shouldn’t prevent us thinking with a clear head.

Baron said: “But in the last three years the polarization has only gotten more extreme,”

Agreed, again. And the extremity of that polarisation will continue growing. And the extremity of the consequent violence will grow too. Is that what we want? Is it workable? Can we think of a better alternative?

Baron said: “… the PC/MC crowd are accelerating the bus towards the edge of the cliff while conservatives hide under the seats in fear of being labeled “Nazis”.”

Good analogy. The PC/MC lemmings demand steeper cliffs!

Baron said: “… hammering together a compromise and a coalition that might actually have even a remote chance of making a difference.”

That’s the question – what are the alternatives? What will make a difference? Will it work? Will it make things worse? What will happen if people such as us do nothing?

Baron said: “So what we will have to concentrate on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne…”

Exactly. Nothing would become such a sanctuary more than to make full use of it for clear thinking that it provides!

DP111 pointed out what the Leftist/Muslim alliance would do and say if Wilders took over and tried to stop the Muslim conquest. I will elaborate on the subject.

The problem is that the Leftist elites look on power as an end in itself, and their "rightful property". One of the ways they do this is to import 'migrants' who will become "vote aliens" (loyal sheep that will vote for them.) They have a fondness for this because they believe that "Western Imperialism" is the sole obstacle to utopia. As Sarte said in the forward of "The Wretched of the Earth" (1963), 'Natives of all the underdeveloped countries, Unite!'. Thus, when they see the Muslim 'migrants', they think they are getting what they want.

Now the "community leaders" of the Muslim 'migrants' have figured out how to use the situation to their advantage, and they say "We will deliver you the vote, but only if you agree to 'respect' our 'minority rights' and promote 'diversity' (Shariah, more Shariah, and yet a little more Shariah). Otherwise, we can yank our support, and the right wing could win." The Leftists are terrified at losing power (and deluded into thinking that there can be no adverse consequences to any of their actions), so they keep giving more and more to the "community leaders" (Sheikhs and Imams who want Shariah/ Eurabian Caliphate ), and increasing Muslim immigration. Meanwhile, the Islamists are continuing to point out all the problems of the West, and presenting Islam as an alternative.

The problem with assuming the paradigm will change is that neither the Leftists or the Muslims want the paradigm to change (Islamists are very busy using the existing paradigm to bring about their desired paradigm.)

If we wait 20 years for a 'civil war' to 'expel the invaders', we might be surprised at the results. In 20 years, the Muslim population of the EU will have at least tripled (due to migration and higher birthrates) and the number of Native Europeans under 35 will have dropped by 40%. Furthermore, those same people will be used to the appeasement of Islam and consider the situation 'normal' (PC MC brainwashing at work). They might think of expelling Muslims from Europe as most people today would think of expelling Black Americans from America ("these people [unassimilated Muslims] are part of our culture"!!). Meanwhile, what 'training' have the 'migrant youths' received in the meantime?

Al-Hijra is a very strong strategy. The Native Westerners MUST have more children, and train their children to survive (instead of letting them be brainwashed in PC MC public schools). We must also then stop Muslim immigration-- Which will take iron resolve [we will have to keep deporting 'new migrants' again and again, due to the airplane.]

The problem of the Right is that they have never had the objective of eliminating Leftism as an ideology. They have just tweaked the edges, thinking that society will be fine. We had better change our objectives, or it will be "the end of the world as we know it".

So what we will have to concentrate on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne, a networked sanctuary where what is good and valuable can be stored and kept for use in a future time after the chaos is over – if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

This is a beautiful analogy. And precisely as I see the things.

Only... of course... that I want to save the Vikings from Christianity, rather than the other way around :-)

if indeed such an eventuality ever comes.

Oh, about this I'm confident and positive, as I have already said. There's surely no way to stop the chaos coming. But just as surely, from the ashes of the chaos, a fantastic renaissance will grow. We will prevail, severely hurt yes, but with an ironclad inspired spirit.

I just hope the chaos will start soon enough, so that I will be able to live when the turnaround happens.

Which is why I’d like people to take advantage of the freedom, by looking harder at what can be done, rather than expressing the wish to retaliate. I see too much unfocused aggression, occasionally as a way to avoid reflection and analysis. Now is the time for reflection, even if you feel too angry for it.

If I may say so, I think that you've gotten this the wrong way, even upside down.

Indeed I think you are alone in seeing this thread as full of angry people who denounce the opportunity to reflect.

I think you probably mix up the discussion about hate, brought up by Chechar, with emotions of hate. In your view isn't is possible to have an intellectual discussion about hate, without at the same feeling hate?

Does that hold for all emotions? Isn't it possible to have a discussion about happiness without at the same time being happy? Or about sadness without at the same time being sad?

I would like to see more discussion of what the alternative setup (“paradigm”) should be.

This is exactly what's being done in this thread.

But if you choose to see this thread as an expression of "unfocused aggression", by all means, it's your privilege to do so.

I always have the impression that majority of younger people perceive the rock&roll era as the beginning of history(sic!), the politically interested people on the left go back to Marx times or French Revolution, right wing and nationalist go to the beginnings of the nation or kingdom and only a very small percentage can see any connexion between ancient Greece and Rome and our present state of affairs. Ancient Egypt and Fertile Crescent is totally off limits. Only religious freaks ever refer to the biblical times and they are rapidly dying out.

Paradoxically, the central position of Koran gives Muslims much more direct relationship to their past and our past as well! More than any "pragmatic" history curriculum in our education system can ever hope to give. In our culture people who know who Thucydides was are such a tiny minority, that it is practically negligible statistically, I suspect. Even though the "History of the Peloponnesian War" is the beginning of modern history writing. So it will be our collective obsession with "newness" against their obsession with "unchangeable word of God". I would still put my money on us, although the initial shock of having to confront the culture that is so alien to ours will be unimaginable, but so is actually the present state of stupor.

I also publish another point about the Welfare State roots, and about Chechar's Thesis:

If you want to be a good parent, DON'T give your children everything they want, even if you can easily afford it. Teach them to work for it, and you will have children who can successfully struggle for survival (rather than delusional adults that think 'peace, prosperity, and endless ease and entertainment' are their "fundamental human rights". When you think about it, most Leftist Philosophers came from privileged backgrounds and grew up without having to work and struggle for survival. Thus, they developed philosophies to attack societies’ “restrictions”(really the moral and ethical framework that Western society had in place to ensure the proper discipline and responsibility for survival).

Another historical example is apt. Many people were so traumatized by the Great Depression (and manipulated by Leftists) that their philosophy as parents in the 1950’s and ‘60’s was “I don’t want my children to go without”, since they had swallowed the line that struggle and deprivation are psychologically harmful. They are NOT—the generation that lived through the Great Depression is now known as “the Greatest Generation”. As a result of this false idea that “doing without” is harmful, many baby boomer children thought that “our parents only care about money!” This was a factor in the Western Cultural Revolution.

More to the point, the view that ‘poverty’ [struggle] causes social (psychological) problems is very destructive to the West when it is faced with ‘migrants’. The Leftists think that poor people are “less fit” to survive than wealthy people (such as themselves], due to the idea that hardship harms ‘proper psychological development’. Thus, we must make poor people “more equal” by ‘redistributing the wealth’ so that people can “progress” to ‘better states of psychological development’. (We can see the ugly racism behind the welfare state now.) When people from say, Somalia, come to Sweden, they are modern humans very well trained in the struggle for survival. The Swedes have been brainwashed into thinking that THEY HAVE NO STRUGGLE FOR SURVIVAL. Thus, the face off isn’t going to turn out like the Leftists think it will.Another problem with Western ease and entertainment is “virtual reality”. This technology came about in the 1990’s, but the problem is that many Westerners have trouble knowing what is really real and what is make-believe. More to the point, when Native Europeans hear all this speech making by Muslim “community leaders” about Shariah/Caliphate/Jihad etc. they assume that it is a bunch of clowns shooting their mouths off. (A culturally diverse form of entertainment, if you will). After all, Westerners experience much (music and video games come to mind) that would be scary if taken literally, but it is just fantasy and talk. They don’t get that the “Community Leaders “ (Imams and Sheikhs) speeches are for real , and the real thing.

I would hope that Chechar will expand the concept of “bad parenting” to include “pampered children with too much entertainment and not enough knowledge of work, self-denial, and delayed gratification”.

“If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every battle you win, you win lose a battle. If you do not know either the enemy or yourself, you will be imperiled in EVERY battle.”

Also Ayaan Hirsi Ali--

“But I don’t even think that the trouble is Islam. The trouble is the West, because in the West there’s this notion that we are invincible and that everyone will modernize anyway, and that what we are seeing now in Muslim countries is a craving for respect. Or it’s poverty, or it’s caused by colonization.

The Western mind-set — that if we respect them, they’re going to respect us, that if we indulge and appease and condone and so on, the problem will go away — is delusional. The problem is not going to go away. Confront it, or it’s only going to get bigger.”

And finally, a portion of an eariler post of mine--

If intelligent robots were invented, Westerners would think “How can this technology make life easier?” while Muslims, guided by the Ulema (religious judges) would be concerned about making sure the intelligent robots where operated in a halal manner. This is quite a different concept (based on different political experiences in the past 200 years as much as Islam itself), but before you snort at this ‘primitive’ approach to technology, consider the weakness of the Western approach. If technology drives culture and ethics (apart from absolute ethics), then a society has no absolute values, and people don’t know what to believe. Indeed, if it were not for this phenomenon of Western culture, we probably would NEVER have accepted that which ‘Secular Progressives’ have foisted upon us in the name of ‘keeping up with the times’. Many science fiction stories are about machines taking over (2001: A Space Odyssey, and I, Robot (2004) come to mind.) But what happens when a culture that wants to control technology with its values interacts with a society that allows its cultural values to be determined by its technology?

“People of the West:

Your culture is determined by your technologies,

Our culture will teach us how to control your technologies.

Therefore, we are the ones who will learn to control YOU.

Your culture will adapt to service ours.”

I am glad you realize our present state of stupor as unimaginably strange. We had better get out of it, though, if we are to survive.

"What is tragic is that a person after person after person after person (all white people, of course) tells me"

I am shocked. Do most people in your country believe this?

That is exactly the sort of thinking I was talking about in my, and the threads, first post on this subject.

To save you having to go all the way to the begining;

He has forgotten one EXTREMLY important factor. And that is the 80% that could not care less.

So long as they have their Alcho-pops, betting shops, and cheap pornography (As Orwell described it), they will let the "Governments" get away with ANY thing.

Therefore they have not got a CLUE what is going on. Even if they HAVE, they think their democcratic duty is done by writing a stiff two line post on a news paper web site, then sitting back to watch Sponge Bob, or whatever turns their low I.Q on.

These are the people that will wake up with the knock on the door of the "British (read here German/Dutch/French, etc, etc) council of muslim propriety thought police" one morning in ten years time, because they were not in mosque yesterday, and complain like Hel that no one told them this would happen. FT

Now for those of us who remember the sixth form common rooms of Britain in the mid to late 70s, you will remember the pathetic communist (IF they ever knew what one WAS at 16 and 17 years old), members of "c.n.d" and believers that the police should be disbanded, idiots that just like the quote regarding "Brown is beutiful", thought that a "coffee couloured world" was the idea to aim for. Think.

Where are those idiots now?

Answer; They are British politicians. Incapability Brown and his gang of marauding none performing parliamentary apes, and more dangerously, their views have not changed!

I am sure it is the same all over Europe. Sweden, Denmark, Niederland and Germany deffinately.

Conservative Swede said: “Indeed I think you are alone in seeing this thread as full of angry people who denounce the opportunity to reflect.”

No, I certainly wouldn’t say that I have experienced anyone denouncing the opportunity to reflect on this site! Why would they?!

Conservative Swede said: “In your view isn't is possible to have an intellectual discussion about hate, without at the same feeling hate?”

Yes, I agree. I think what I’m talking about is on the occasions when practical measures are put forward and discussed, that there frequently appears to me to be more passion and indignation than analysis. I’m very much in favour of decisive action, but after the plans are laid and not before.

I said: “I would like to see more discussion of what the alternative setup (“paradigm”) should be.”

Conservative Swede said: “This is exactly what's being done in this thread.”

Maybe I have missed them, but I haven’t seen specific proposals for action, i.e. people putting forward practical methods to achieve the desired goal. And on the occasions when that happens I think I see more passion than sharpness of mind.

Specifically, what I would like to see is: (1) more time devoted to considering practical solutions, proposals for action, and (2) clarity of mind when action is discussed, including the self-restraint necessary for useful reflection.

I wish I could be as optimistic as you Con Swede. But I really fear for the worst: ethnic dwarfness and cultural takeover.

Well, the whole point is that it takes "the worst" before the thick heads of the collective mind will shift. Catastrophe, chaos, trauma, etc. as we said.

And much of what you describe has already happened.

Ethnic dwarfness -- People of European descent used to constitute 30% of the people on this planet (in the 50s). Now we are down to a little more than 10%. However, even if we go as low as 5% before the turnaround comes, that's still not the end of things.

And we have had a lot of cultural takeover already (see the articles of this blog). The only thing that is remaining of the old order (the happy 50s) is the collective illusion that every is fine. It's when this goes away that a turnaround can happen.

The point is that we are doing these things to ourselves. Watching Eagle talks about "the end of the world as we know it". I just can't wait to see "the end of the world as we know it". "The world as we know it" is exactly what is the problem.

The good news is that there are many catastrophic events in store for the coming five years, which have great potential in not only tearing apart the collective illusion of the bubble, but actually make sever cracks in the institutions upholding the current order and paradigm.

Free Hal said: “Specifically, what I would like to see is: (1) more time devoted to considering practical solutions, proposals for action,”

Conservative Swede said: “If you want to be engaged in activism in the present, then connect by emailing any of the anti-jihad bloggers. These things are not discussed openly, as you can understand.”

What I’m referring to is theoretical discussion of practical solutions, before the action stage. I guess you might call this ‘conceptual’, ‘planning’, or ‘ideas-stage’ rather than activism. Whilst I appreciate the threat of PC enforcement, I think people can in general discuss the kind of solution they think will work, even if they are occasionally reluctant to be specific. I am prepared to do so. Zenster is prepared to say what he thinks the best – or the only – solution is. Possibly El Ingles too, although his writings take more of a descriptive than prescriptive form.

I can’t think of other examples, which is a shame, because I think it is a shame not to use this small patch of intellectual freedom for that purpose.

What I’m referring to is theoretical discussion of practical solutions, before the action stage.

Fair enough. And we have had tons of discussions like that during the years. This one is a different kind of discussion (read Lawrence Auster at the top again). A discussion that you unfortunately have been unable to connect to. Your strange remarks about the nature of this discussion indicates that. It's highly ironic that you should say that it's lacking of reflection.

The discussion that you want makes the assumption that the current paradigm, the current belief system, can be reformed from within. While this here discussion makes an opposite assumption: that the current belief system, the current order, cannot be mended but has to be completely reversed, has to fall apart and go through a revolution.

It's fine to say "I don't want this discussion, I want a different discussion", but before you comment on a discussion you ought to make the effort in trying to understand the nature of the discussion.

The discussion here is rare. And still you seem to want it to go away. I cannot understand that wish, since there are a hundred discussions of the kind you want for every discussion like this one. Why not let this flower bloom, even if it's not your cup of tea? There many more other discussions, based on the assumptions you want to make, which you will be able to tune in to.

Move to a safe place. I suggest a small town. Cities and lonely countryside won't be safe. Consider whether moving to another country could make it safer for you and your family when the sh*t hits the fan.

Make stable networks with people. Both at a distance and close. Both for discussing the issues and for concrete help when the sh*t hits the fan. Be aware of who are your real friends; who you can trust all the way.

For the ones with a good sense of irony: enlist as a volunteer for the Obama campaign. The sooner he can destroy the current order the better. Make sure to do above preparation first though.

And as the Baron said "So what we will have to concentrate on is the construction of a modern version of the monastery at Lindisfarne, a networked sanctuary where what is good and valuable can be stored and kept for use in a future time after the chaos is over."

Myself I'm interested in studying the fundamental flaws in the current paradigm, as a way to find the frames of possibility for how a new paradigm could be reconstructed. My conclusion is that we'll have to revert far back in history in order to find something sustainable to build on, to cut off the rotten and infected areas. For some things a hundred years, for some a thousand years. It's definitely not enough to revert the social revolution of the '68. I'd say that both Fjordman and Baron Bodissey have tuned in to this way of thinking, even though we all have different approaches.

Con Swede: Wow: what a brutally-honest response, just the literary style I like the most.

In the thread about his essay I remember Free Hal quoting El Inglés’s sentence about the great difficulty of making the transition (“Get a gun and learn how to use it”). My educated guess is that both his essay and his posts at this thread have to do with what I may call a typical British gentleman’s reluctance to see the harsh facts that await us in this and in the following century.

Free Hal: I would recommend you what I have recommended to other commenters in other threads: see the film Children of Men, (and what I say about it here).

Since as a child I was educated in the visual and music arts, it’s easier (at least to me) to grasp a subject visually before adding cognitive/reflective stuff. The film shows how will the UK look in a few decades. There’s no escape. We must confront this grim reality by starting to imitate the Americans in their love for guns. Other ways will probably be revealed as quixotic in the forthcoming future.

Yes, that's generally true. Conservative principle admonishes us not to overlook tradition. Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition. Just like that! We wish it all away.

We'll soon find out to our chagrin how mistaken we have been. But as for exactly what we'll return to -- it's too early to say.

The only thing that I'm certain of is that it will not involve government-run mass pension plans.

Part of the modern Liberal ideal is the foolish notion that we can simply abolish by fiat millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.

This is a very important sentence. Which conveys so very much, if we just examine it closely.

Not only the liberals, but also most people (anti-liberals), who see and fear the fall of the liberal world order, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased.

But neither the rise nor the fall of liberalism can take away millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition.

This is what it is based on, what Chechar refers to as my optimism. It's just following the conservative principle you gave here. But unfortunately the effect of the current belief system is so strong even on anti-liberals, that they cannot see that.

So it's the liberal layer (on top of evolution, culture, and traditions) that will get peeled off. Together with those traditions that led to liberalism in the first place.

The fall of this liberal world order will hit us hard (together with the destruction that liberalism has already caused). But we won't suddenly just disappear. And as long as we are around we have millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition on our side.

Even if there would be only 100 millions left of us, we are the best people in the history of mankind. As Huntington pointed out, we have always been superior in the ability to apply organized violence. As soon as the will power is there, we can achieve anything we please. We can rule any continent where we choose to live.

As long as the liberal layer gets peeled off. And it's bound to come off, since it's just a cosmetic layer. The reason that it has not come off yet is that it has not yet become obvious to the collective mind that it has failed. But that is about to change.

I just wrote:Not only the liberals, but also most people (anti-liberals), who see and fear the fall of the liberal world order, have forgotten that these things cannot be erased.

And this is the reason why so many good people here are in despair and/or frustration.

Either one refuse to see that the liberal world order is bound to fall down. That we are heading for chaos. Then their mental focus is still on repairing the liberal world order; in effect defending it.

Or one sees the chaos and the complete breakdown coming, but misinterpret it as the end of everything. Either for the shock of this insight, or for still misinterpreting many things of the cosmetic liberal layer as real substantive reality.

Both types misses the point, and only see the tip of the iceberg, the cosmetic liberal layer, and forget the whole big and really important part under the water, consisting of millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition (as BB put it so well).

So for type 1: There's no point in defending the tip of the iceberg. In fact the sooner it goes away the better.

For type 2: If the tip of the iceberg goes away it's not the end of the iceberg.

But sure, when the tip of the iceberg is gone, it means the end of the iceberg "as we know it". Which is something we should appreciate and look forward to. Get used to the idea. I understand that it feels strange, and even "unreal". But get used to the idea in order to be better mentally prepared (add this to my list of practical solutions upon which action can be taken in the now).

CS: "Even if there would be only 100 millions left of us, we are the best people in the history of mankind."

Roman: Pure Viking spirit, the Men of the North Manifesto!

Actually the true Viking spirit is that two is enough to make it happen. As is described in the event we call Ragnarök:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar%C3%B6k"In Norse mythology, Ragnarök, "final destiny of the gods", is a series of major events, including a great battle foretold to ultimately result in the death of a number of major figures (including the gods Odin, Thor, Freyr, Heimdall, and the jötunn Loki), the occurrence of various natural disasters, and the subsequent submersion of the world in water (global warming? :-)

Afterward, the world resurfaces anew and fertile, the surviving gods meet, and the world is repopulated by two human survivors (Líf and Lífþrasir)."

This is a much more useful mythological narrative than Christianity, which does not only mean adherence to universalist individualism and the importation of a foreign god (and in its final stages the importation of a lot of other immigrants), but also has a mythological narrative where the survival of our own people hold no significance whatsoever. The only people that are guaranteed to survive until the end of days in Christianity are the Jews. Swedes, Italians etc. are of no significance whatsoever.

We see all these tenets of Christianity manifested around us today. Even in how the struggle for ethnic survival of the Jews is accepted within our current paradigm (see above exactly what I mean by that), while it is not accepted for the other people of our civilization.

Each ethnic group need her great mythological narrative, starting with the birth of her people and guaranteeing their existence until the end of times. Without such a narrative the dissolvement of the ethnic group eventually becomes self-fulfilling (there's nothing holding it together).

We see this happening around us in the very now with eager work to dissolve our countries and ethnic groups. In Christianity the Germanic people cannot (as a people) have a relation with god, only the Jewish people has. Germanic (and other) people can only have a relation with god as individuals. We see the Western Christian civilization working for its goals accordingly.

With such an ethnocentric mythological narrative great confidence is built. People are directed by myths more than anything else, so with a narrative where your ethnic group is of no importance, it will eventually become self-fulfilling (i.e. the opposite effect of self-confidence as a group).

What can we do to accelerate the process of decomposition?I guess provoking Muslims and Liberals on a regular basis helps a bit? That is my regular free-time occupation! It is childish, I know :-)

Conservative Swede said: “The discussion that you want makes the assumption that the current paradigm, the current belief system, can be reformed from within. “

And where have I “made this assumption”? Feel free to be specific.

(FYI I don’t think that the current paradigm can, or will, be reformed from within – a fact very clear from my previous messages and essay. To repeat: my view is that the political system will collapse – “non-democratic discontinuity” in El Ingles’ phrase. I.e. more than just the collapse of the ‘belief system’. Belief in what - “modern liberalism”?. And that collapse will be very violent. As I have stated time and again. What I think this amounts to is the beginning of the end of the era of democracy.)

Conservative Swede said: “While this here discussion makes an opposite assumption: that the current belief system, the current order, cannot be mended but has to be completely reversed, has to fall apart and go through a revolution.”

Completely wrong. Laurence Auster’s essay assumes that the current order can be mended, and my criticism of him, had you read it, is on precisely this point. See Laurence Auster quote: “If the still large white majorities … … the necessity of preserving them.”

Ending the modern liberal belief system alone won’t end immigration. And ending immigration won’t end the demographic trends Auster refers to. Current trends are headed for disaster, and the remedy will have to be fundamental because the problem is fundamental.

Please read what I have actually written, e.g. on my Rollback essay.

Conservative Swede said: “It's fine to say “The discussion here is rare. And still you seem to want it to go away.” “

Strawman, eh? Please show me where I have said I want to make discussion go away? The Baron may wish to indicate how keen, or otherwise, I am to suppress discussion here.

Conservative Swede: “It's fine to say "I don't want this discussion, I want a different discussion"”.

More strawman! Where have I said this? I dispute Auster’s conclusion. And I want to see more of what people think would be a good plan for saving free western civilisation.

12-bore or rifle? “A Father’s Advice” by Mark Beaufoy, hung on our wall as a boy. Although I was good at clay pigeon, I found the setups contrived –especially those reverse overhead shots! – and preferred single-shots. Now I find twelve bore more practical for the simple purpose of dinner.

So how do my gun skills contribute to saving free western civilisation?

Hmmm… What is your opinion on put-options? Gold or silver? And how to check the robustness of the purchaser for social meltdown scenarios? Do you think diamonds could replace gold as a refuge commodity? Or do you think investing in private security apparatus offers better returns in times of anomie and warlordism? (These questions are rhetorical)

So how does my investment strategy contribute to saving free, western civilisation? (This is getting repetitive)

“Move to a safe place.”

Not forgetting growing season. And do you see a contradiction between owning real-estate and fast emigration in a plunging market? Rent or own? (rhetorical again)

So how does my having my bases covered contribute to saving free, western civilisation?

“Make stable networks with people.” Yes, friends and family are always important, especially at times of stress.

So how does my social and family life contribute to saving free, western civilisation?

“The sooner he can destroy the current order the better.”

I have debated quite a few Marxists who generally believe that social meltdown will be a brief carnival, perhaps a little high spirited at times, before the inevitable reversion to utopia. Funnily enough, when pressed to describe their strategy and aims, they become evasive. What silly people they are eh, Conservative Swede!!

How does destroying “the current order” save free, western civilisation? (See “non-sequitur”)

Now, do you have a plan for saving free, western civilisation?

This isn’t so foolish a question, partly because most people here, including me, think western civilisation is under threat, and partly because putting forward plans for action helps focus ideas and refine understanding of causes.

Try it – you’ll be surprised how it reveals flaws and sharpens strategy.

So how does my ... contribute to saving free western civilisation? (This is getting repetitive)

Yes, you have repeated many times just the assumption that you started off by denying that you'd made. It seems that you are unable to think outside of this assumption -- in such a way that even makes you blind to the fact that it is an assumption.

How does destroying “the current order” save free, western civilisation?

The Baron said: "For example, Russian military action is never, ever seen as acceptable. Not under any circumstances, no matter what".

Russians got a complete free pass from the entire world including Muslims for Chechnya. They leveled Grozny to rubble twice and set up a thug regime with a puppet warlord who assassinates his critics with impunity.

Over the graves of Chechens and now the Russian human rights activists who dared document the slaughter the crickets chirp.

Contrast the global apoplexy including UN fuming that would have resulted were Israel substituted for Russia and Gaza for Grozny, with the same indiscriminate slaughter.

It is American military action that is never seen as acceptable by world opinion which is controlled by leftists (with Israel a close second in opprobrium received for a fraction of what Russia has done).

World Muslim ingratitude to the USA for saving part of the umma in Kosovo is counterpointed with Muslim indifference to the much worse Russian depredations against another part of the umma. Is the explanation for the pass given to Russia (and China's persecution of Uighurs) that their net service to the Muslim umma by arming them around the world against the West, especially the US and Israel outweighs over a hundred thousand Muslim lives, or does one get a discount for non-Arab Muslim lives? In general, Muslims seem to object only Muslim lives that are lost to Americans or Israelis. For everyone else, including Muslim Arab militias in Darfur, it's open season on Muslims.

It's not really concern over Muslims being killed, only who's doing the killing. Dead Muslims are bargaining chips on the world stage for guilt money and concessions, but they only work as such if they're dead by American or Israeli hands.

In fact, Russians got away with murder of sixty million in the twentieth century pretty well scot free and got away with murder again on a smaller scale. Leftist media didn't and doesn't lay a glove on them.

In that case, I would be very interested to hear what you propose should be done to save western civilisation.

And there is your assumption again. That the Western Christian civilization should be saved. That it can be reformed, be mended.

While I'm assuming that the current order, the current belief system, will self-implode. And as the current order is the last and terminal phase of Western Christian civilization, which has reached a dead end, this means the end of Western Christian civilization as such. Yes, we are seeing something like the fall of Rome before us.

I've been clear about this from the very beginning. E.g. three days ago I wrote:

"Likewise many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group, will see the fall of the Western Christian civilization as the end of the world; commit suicide etc. But instead the fall of the Western Christian civilization should be celebrated. This is the paradigm that stands in the way of our saviour. This is the key knot in need to be untied."

Yes the Western Christian civilization is exactly the problem, and the problem is solved by it going away.

What we should hold on to are our ethnic groups and European civilization and culture in the deeper sense. Western Christian civilization is a novelty and now it failed. The Baron gives the perspective: "millions of years of evolution, thousands of years of culture, and centuries of tradition". Western Christian civilization is just the tip of that iceberg. It's just a way of politically organizing our peoples. We should not save this format, but save the matter.

The Western Christian civilization is what happened when Germanic people met Christianity. But nothing lasts forever. Quite as the Roman Empire it can be compared with a fruit, going through all the stages: bud, flower, incipient fruit, green fruit, ripe fruit, overripe fruit, rotten fruit. With this I'm saying: i) indeed Western Christian civilization has meant many good things, and ii) it's all over now.

It is unsustainable for Germanic people to keep Christianity. It would indeed mean their death. And since the Western Christian civilization is all about Germanic people meeting Christianity, the necessary turnaround for Germanic people also means the definitive end of Western Christian civilization. Africans and Italians sticking to Christianity does not make a Western Christian civilization.

First of all, when I talk of Christianity I use it in the same sense as Huntington or Qutb. I.e. it doesn't matter those who claim to be atheists, they are equally much Christians in this perspective. In fact, you will find that they stick to Christian ethics even stronger than the nominal Christians. Trying to be holier than thou, as if trying to get in line before the nominal Christians to the heaven the don't believe in.

Medieval Catholicism was nicely mixed and balanced with Roman and Greek components. The explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels was kept secret from the general public. The Protestant Reformation changed that. Christianity became purified into its Hebrew component, and the explosive and revolutionary message of the gospels were set free. This purification was taken even further, and completed, by the Puritans and the Quakers that left across the Atlantic, to found America. And these are the people who rule our civilization today.

There are several reasons why Christianity leads to secularism in is latter phases (let me get back to that if there is interest, since this is becoming very long as it is). Secular Christianity has thrown out god and Christ, but keeps the Christian ethics (inversion of values etc.). And the Christian ethics actually gets heightened and unfettered in Secular Christianity. (I have written much about that in my blog.)

With Christ as part of the equation, the Christian ethics of the Gospels became balanced. Humans were seen as imperfect and it was Christ who covered for us with his self-sacrifice. In Secular Christianity each person has to be like Jesus himself, doing self-sacrifice, since there's no other way to realize Christian ethics.

On top of that, with the Industrial Revolution, and the surplus it created in our societies, we came to the point where all the good deeds of Christian ethics could finally be executed. By giving of our surplus to all the poor and weak foreign people around the world.

Food, Western medicine, and other aid. Thus the Western Christian civilization caused the population explosion in the Third World. It is entirely caused by the Western Christian civilization, since these Third World countries were completely unable to do this themselves.

Christian ethics commands that every single human life should be saved if possible. Before, more than half of the children in Third World countries died. Now virtually all survive. And we have the population explosion.

What this will lead to is the following. With the dollar collapse and the complete breakdown of our economical (and then political) world order, mass starvation will spread like a wildfire across the southern hemisphere. This since their population numbers are not supported by themselves, but entirely backed by us. It will all fall apart.

So the concrete effect of Christian ethics here is to make the number of people that will die in starvation and suffering as high as possible, once it hits (we are speaking of billions thanks to Christian ethics). Only the devil himself could think out such a brutally cruel scheme. And Christian ethics of course, in which case it's according to the idiom "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

But that's not enough. This mass starvation, where we can expect something like 2/3 of the people dying in the Third World countries, will slash these societies into pieces, and they will meet a complete breakdown.

In the alternative scenario, where the Christian ethics would have kept its fingers away. The these countries would have supported themselves, every year many children would have died at a pretty constant pace. But this is a stable phenomenon that does not at all threaten the stability of their societies. When the Western economical order falls apart, they would not be the least affected.

But Christian ethics cannot stand the sight of little brown children dying. They must help them, or they will freak out. The cannot keep their fingers away. So they are dooming them to mass starvation in the billions and complete breakdowns of their societies. This is the concrete effect of Christian ethics.

At this point it wouldn't help putting back god and Christ into the equation. Instead we need to leave Christian ethics.

I have already stated how Western Christian civilization = Germanic people + Christianity.

I will now clarify why specifically Germanic people need to leave Christianity.

Look at the phenomenon of clan mentality around the world. In many places around the world it is strong, in Europe it is not. But even within Europe there are clear differences. Indeed we find clan mentality in Southern Europe, while there's none of it in Northern Europe (among Germanic people).

There are historical reasons for this. In the cold north people lived far apart. Human contacts were few, and strangers were therefore treated with friendliness. This was the best survival strategy in this context. However, the Mediterranean area was crowded, and there was always competition about land and resources. The best survival strategy in such a context was to stick to your clan, in this tight competition.

The whole point of Christian ethics, when it works well, is to have a balancing effect on the morality of people. In the Mediterranean area it had a balancing effect on the natural clan mentality. Leaving a good result. However, Germanic people, as described above, have a natural altruism. When combined with the unfettered Christian ethics of the latter stages of the Western Christian civilization, it creates and interference that goes completely out of bounds.

The morality of Germanic people has reached a point where it has to be balanced back, or we will perish. To create this balance Germanic people have to leave Christian ethics.

Romance and Slavic people can keep Christianity. It's not a matter of life or death for them.

What we are witnessing in the present time is the great tragedy of Germanic people.

With the lack of clan mentality, we find that Germanic people are the ones that most faithfully turn their loyalty towards the nation. But due to the inherent universalism of Christianity, we see in the current incarnation of Western Christian civilization how nations are considered illegitimate and gradually being dissolved. The nationalist loyalty of the Germanic people becomes redirected to universalist loyalty; still lacking of clan mentality.

Germanic people do not use the power of their family to solve problems. They go to a higher level, the authorities. To use the power of your family to solve a problem is here considered a sin, we are supposed to abide to the law. In Italy or Spain people do use the power of their family to solve problems.

There is an abundance of stories in blogs from Northern Europe of kids who go through their whole school time being beaten up by Muslim cousins on a weekly basis. The furthest the parents of these children would do is to bring up the problem with the authorities (and possibly having a "dialog" with the Muslim parents). Which of course will do nothing about it, since the belief system of the authorities doesn't allow for it. And even so the parents never use the power of their family to deal with the problem. They are programmed to abide to the law and the order.

I cannot see this happening in Italy or Spain. There is a whole different mentality. There would be an outrage, and the whole family would be engaged in the matter. Mostly not going into mafia methods, but in some places yes.

Germanic people are simply wired the wrong way to being able to survive in a multiethnic context. Or to be exact: Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are. We managed fine in the age of the great migrations and as Vikings.

Due to the loyalty to the higher level and the lack of clan mentality, Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics have needed a pure ethnic context in order to being able to thrive. Apart from Europe itself, e.g. America and South Africa are examples of this.

Compare North and Latin America. Latin America is multiethnic. The Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians could deal with this. Thanks to their clan mentality they could live and deal with this "mess". North Americans couldn't. The Germanic people had to execute an effective ethnic cleansing in order to create a society suited for them. I know a vast amount of Native Americans died from diseases. But that does still not explain for the striking difference between North and Latin America in the presence of Native Americans today (all of them coming from the same gene pool, having the same weakness against European diseases).

In South Africa, ethnic cleansing was not an option. Instead the same effect was achieved by separating the societies, to have a Germanic society within the society.

Now we are entering a world of multiethnic societies at a planetary level. And the Germanic people adhering to Christian ethics are constitutionally unfit for this. Unless we leave Christian ethics, we will perish. Or rather, those who cling to Christian ethics will perish, according to the law of the survival of the fittest. But enough Germanic people will leave Christian ethics, for Germanics to survive as a people.

Leaving Christian ethics has nothing to do with becoming secular (as I explained above). To the contrary, it makes it worse! What is needed is to introduce another great mythological narrative into the minds of the Germanic people. This is the only way to replace the moral grammar of Christianity. Something with roots in our long history. This must done by political means, by a regime with such a focus. But given that focus, it's not such a big thing to achieve. There are numerous historical examples of how to do it. And it only takes a generation to make the change (even less). And in a dire situation, after a major trauma, it will be even easier.

Compare North and Latin America. Latin America is multiethnic. The Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians could deal with this. Thanks to their clan mentality they could live and deal with this "mess". North Americans couldn't. The Germanic people had to execute an effective ethnic cleansing in order to create a society suited for them. I know a vast amount of Native Americans died from diseases. But that does still not explain for the striking difference between North and Latin America in the presence of Native Americans today (all of them coming from the same gene pool, having the same weakness against European diseases).

There is a further reason for this outcome besides the one you stated which has to do with the deep-seated differences in scriptural interpretation by the Catholic Spaniards, Portuguese and Italians who settled South America and the Protestant English fundamentalists who settled North America.

The latter, being literalists, conceived of themselves as the direct successors to the ancient Israelites who had been given divine authority to kill the Caananites and establish Israel. The Protestants looked on themselves as the New Israelites and the Native Americans as the New Caananites to be wiped out. The Catholics on the other hand were charged with converting the natives.

When the conquistador Francisco Pizarro and his men came upon the Incan civilisation they famously gave a Bible to an Incan chief called Athualpa was angrily threw it the Bible to the ground saying, "I will be no man's slave." Pizarro's men massacred Athualpa and his soldiers and when they'd conquered the land the rest of the natives were converted.

And thus we are speaking of the deepest level of a paradigm change here. Our very concepts of good and bad, our moral grammar, has to be transformed.

In sort of perspective, even the apparent moral tautology "We should strive for what is good, and fight against what is bad" no longer holds true.

Our very concepts of good and bad is what has to be transformed. It's hard to think outside of this box. But that's the whole point of the word paradigm. It's a box that it is virtually impossible for people in general to think outside of.

E.g. "Kuhn argues that rival paradigms are incommensurable—that is, it is not possible to understand one paradigm through the conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm."

I.e. previous or future paradigms are almost as alien to us as e.g. Chinese culture.

Furthermore, a paradigm determines (even) our perception completely.

It not the case that Aristotle had misunderstood the concept of force and that Newton corrected him. Instead Aristotle had an entirely different concept of force, based on entirely different fundamental assumptions, and which made perfect sense within his system. What we witnessed in the paradigm shift from Aristotle to Newton is the transformation of the whole scientific "grammar" of physics. In the same way we are about to witness the transformation of our whole grammar of morality. Quite as our grammar of morality was different before the Age of Christianity.

When the paradigm shifted from Newton to Einstein, it didn't mean the end of science. I just meant the end of a scientific era, which became replaced with a new one. In the same manner the fall of the Western Christian civilization does not mean the end of European civilization in the larger sense. It just means a new era. Quite as when the Roman-Greek civilization was replaced by the Western Christian.

HalHow does destroying “the current order” save free, western civilisation?

CSIt doesn't.

That's really cutting the Gordian Knot, eh?

WikiAn anecdote has it that when Philip II sent a message to Sparta saying "If I enter Laconia, I will level Sparta to the ground," the Spartans responded with the single, terse reply: "If."

I agree that Christianity is at the end of its tether and is unable to assert itself without breaking its own value system. Probably something similar must have happened in India during Muslim invasions, where Buddhist ideas of compassion and Karma (you get what you deserve, because you produced the cause) left them completely defenseless, they indeed had no narrative that would support their collective existence.

"Indeed we find clan mentality in Southern Europe, while there's none of it in Northern Europe (among Germanic people).There are historical reasons for this. In the cold north people lived far apart. Human contacts were few, and strangers were therefore treated with friendliness. This was the best survival strategy in this context."

That would explain the Jackals' behavioral patterns on one hand and the phenomenal creativity of Northerners on the other. I am always impressed by the fact that the further North you go in Europe, where people are more Germanic, the more harmonious mastery of mind over nature you can see. The functionality paired with beauty. General friendliness of Scandinavians is proverbial. Basically everything in Scandinavia is user-friendly. Even the taxes;-) Problems are with wrong tax-users. Corruption is almost non-existent, which I think is quite a feat!

Altogether, CS, yours is the most complete argument for the death of Christianity I can imagine, certainly more complete than what Nietzsche has ever written.Basically you propose a 100% white Germanic empire. I agree it is not doable with the current paradigm ruling. Not even imaginable. Even though Japan and China ARE successful "racist" empires. Nobody criticizes them for that, since theirs are different narratives, where compassion is not a must and that's why nobody expects them to take any "refugees" in. Actually Japan, having low birthrates too, doesn't even consider importing people and I am sure they will manage the situation. Or am I wrong?

I think you cured me of several illusions which I was considering as a potential part of a solution to "the problem". Hope I am not the only one here.Thank you!

Thanks for your contribution. very interesting! Watching Eagle also contributed, further above, in completing this picture for us in describing how America "was the champion of human fertility rates for nearly 250 years. The fertility rates of this nation soared like a fighter jet with full afterburners." "from the Pilgrims to the Civil War."

The latter, being literalists, conceived of themselves as the direct successors to the ancient Israelites who had been given divine authority to kill the Caananites and establish Israel. The Protestants looked on themselves as the New Israelites and the Native Americans as the New Caananites to be wiped out.

It's sad indeed that Christians have to imagine themselves as Israelites in order to become truly good fighters, which implies effective total war, and the psychology of will power to win at any cost.

Once again it is the same pattern of Christianity that I discussed above, when discussing permitted patriotisms. Our own ethnicity is utterly insignificant in the Christian narrative, while the Jewish ethnicity holds a pivotal position. So Christians have to use this substitute ethnicity to find true confidence and strength.

Good total war has been waged by Christians when imagining themselves as Israelites aiming for building the New Jerusalem. They can also fight limited war in the name of the universal good, or for the sake of Israel (e.g. the crusades). But war by Christians in the name of their own ethnicity is considered illegitimate; well, not even of importance.

According to the same pattern we now see references to Blake/Perry's song about building the New Jerusalem ("And did those feet in ancient time"). E.g. by Auster, Belien and the Luton movement.

In Christianity we cannot be ourselves. We have to pretend we are someone else.

I still think the Russians can use their Christianity in an efficient way. Just since their Christianity hasn't been washed through the Enlightenment. Quite as the American pilgrims and the Boers, discussed above, hadn't. Nor Spain of La Reconquista, of course.

But we can stay assured that the Christians having been washed through the Enlightenment -- and then the Industrial Age, liberalism and secularism -- won't be able to see themselves as Israelites. So this strength is not coming back within the context of Christianity.

Why not be ourselves instead? Replace the current mythological narrative with one where we are ourselves. After all, that is the simple truth: We are ourselves. Christianity is based on deception and distortion of reality.

Another way to go, for those unable to imagine themselves as the Israelites, is at least to make Christianity universal instead of Jewish. Such as we saw recently here at GoV in how many people in Poland e.g. do not see Jesus as Jewish. But we learned from Takuan Seiyo that this is anti-semitic, and therefore evil. There no way to win within the frames of Christianity...

I agree that Christianity is at the end of its tether and is unable to assert itself without breaking its own value system. Probably something similar must have happened in India during Muslim invasions, where Buddhist ideas of compassion and Karma (you get what you deserve, because you produced the cause) left them completely defenseless, they indeed had no narrative that would support their collective existence.

This is an excellent historical comparison. A universalist religion of goodness is replaced with the original national gods, when faced with a threat of existential magnitude. Furthermore, we are speaking of the same sort of time frame. The dominance of Buddhism had been around for as long as the Western Christian civilization. I.e. a millennium and a bit more. Up here in the north its' less than a millennium.

This counters the idea of the impossibility for us to reach back to our old Nordic gods.

Altogether, CS, yours is the most complete argument for the death of Christianity I can imagine, certainly more complete than what Nietzsche has ever written.

Thanks, that's a very nice thing to say. Of course, I had an unfair advantage, since I could read Nietzsche, but he couldn't read me.

I just have to tell a joke. Possibly as a way to cheer up the Christians here. Many years ago I saw it written on the wall of a public toilet:

"God is dead!"signed "Nietzsche"

A bit further down it said:

"Nietzsche is dead!"signed "God"

I am always impressed by the fact that the further North you go in Europe, where people are more Germanic, the more harmonious mastery of mind over nature you can see.

Yes, we have focused on fighting nature instead of each other. All due to our historical situation. If we didn't fight nature we died. If we hadn't isolated our house and stored up well for the winter we died. Out of this a special kind of cooperation between people grew. A traditionalist form of egalitarianism, which apart from Sweden/Norway we only find in America (this is an interesting topic in itself, but no time for that now). However, if you put (unfettered) Christian ethics on top of that...

Basically everything in Scandinavia is user-friendly. Even the taxes;-)

Huh??

Corruption is almost non-existent, which I think is quite a feat!

Implied by the lack of clan mentality. But in our current habitat this mentality is exactly what is killing us.

I think you cured me of several illusions which I was considering as a potential part of a solution to "the problem".Hope I am not the only one here.Thank you!

* “Likewise many people, who are ideologically invested in the current paradigm instead of in their ethnic group… Leaving Christian ethics has nothing to do with becoming secular (as I explained above). To the contrary, it makes it worse! What is needed is to introduce another great mythological narrative into the minds of the Germanic people. This is the only way to replace the moral grammar of Christianity. Something with roots in our long history. This must be done by political means, by a regime with such a focus. But given that focus, it's not such a big thing to achieve. There are numerous historical examples of how to do it. And it only takes a generation to make the change (even less). And in a dire situation, after a major trauma, it will be even easier.” - CS

* “Basically you propose a 100% white Germanic empire.” - Roman

Beautiful dreams. But you have to be very optimistic to believe that the current European Zeitgeist will do an 180º turn.

The Nazis’ blunder was eliminationist anti-Semitism, an extreme passion not shared by the two other fascist states of the time: Franco’s Spain and Italy. Hitler also erred in the so-called Wrong War: provoking the UK and invading France. While in these darkest MC times I would like to see a revived Reich without an iota of eliminationist anti-Semitism, I wouldn’t dare to predict it as historicists do. We are just bloggers and, to boot, no culture backs us up. Our situation is far more precarious than that of the Soviet dissidents in times of the Gulag: they at least knew that anti-communist, powerful states existed. We have nothing even remotely similar now: only to watch, while our livers turn blue, how the Old World—and perhaps even Obama’s New World—destroys itself.

A personal confession: when I am about to wake up but still sleeping, in the threshold state I imagine mushroom clouds near major Western cities to see if this wake the idiots up. But by judging how the chickens behaved a few years ago after the London and Madrid bombings I really don’t know if that would be enough. (You won't believe the level of leftist idiocy I've encountered in this almost one-year visit to Spain.)

First of all, the situation is, as I see it, in the now, a matter of life or death for Germanic people, as for no other ethnic group. So the first thing is to save ourselves. I.e. we have to rule the land where we live, in a self-confident and sustainable way.

The need for ethnic purity stems from the weakness of Christianity. As has been discussed for the historical examples of America and South Africa. But if we drop Christianity we will sustain ethnic mixing much better. First of all with Romance and Slavic people. But of course, if they choose to stay with Christianity cooperation will be harder. But on the other hand I'm sure there are many Romance and Slavic individuals who want to join such a new Germanic project, and leave Christianity behind.

After all, we wouldn't want it to be too Scandinavian (i.e. pure Germanic). As I have pointed out, there are too many weaknesses with that. We need continental influences. Denmark is sort of my idea of a balanced situation. Sweden is far too Germanic. Btw, read about the origins of Germanic people here and here.

A necessary condition for such a Germanic project -- and for the renaissance of Europe altogether! -- is the return of Germany. Germany today is the planetary bully victim, bound and caged in many layers of chains and bars. Not permitted to show even a single shred of national self-confidence. We won't see that until American troops have left Germany, and the whole NATO regime has been reversed. But it will come. Rest assured.

Above is the first step, and, let's say, how far I think we'll come in this century.

For the beginning of the next century, we will be in a situation with China as the great power. There will also be competition with Russia. Probably China will be first in occupying the oil fields around the Persian Gulf, but we will be competing with them about it.

America together with France and Britain will be utterly discredited, seen as the guilty ones for the greatest treason in the history of mankind against their own people (as Fjordman put it). While Germany was completely innocent in this, and will hold the morally superior position.

France might no longer exist. Having first been overrun by Muslims, and then reconquered by Germanic people.

The United States will no longer exist. But the Confederation of the Northern US States will be a natural ally to the Germanics.

Maybe there will be something as a Germanic empire at this point. Or maybe even two, one German speaking and one English speaking. But I'm not as sure about the English speaking one (I'm not saying people won't speak English, only that there might not be a separate empire with English as the official language).

I'm sure we will be able to interact well with both China and Russia. Within the context of power balance; like in the good old days. Before Woodrow Wilson's idiotic idea of an organized world peace. Which is not only a myth but an illusion. Which creates dangerous power vacuums. Which led to WWII e.g.

I'm sure Mecca and Medina will have been nuked by then, and that Islam is no longer of geopolitical significance.

So I'm not proposing a Germanic empire, but it might well develop into one. And I'm not proposing something "100% white Germanic"- This is not what will happen. Take a look at history again!

First of all, White Nationalism is a stance of people who feel victimized. And it's something white people would turn to while still inside the mental box of Christian ethics, and the weakness it implies. Also White Nationalism is more typical of Americans than Europeans, but that is another discussion.

White Nationalism is a weak concept for weak and defeated people. What we need is something strong. To find what that is we should look at Russia. Russia is a multiethnic country, but still entirely Russian. This since Russian culture is dominant, normative and nobody questions it, and it does not blink. Therefore the different peoples within Russia (and the old Russian empire) do not question this, not any more than most Westerners today question their quest for "universal goodness". As described at this site by e.g. Russkiy, Khazars, Tartars, etc. obey and submit to this. Even Muslims find it natural to convert to Christianity in this context.

That's the way!

Germanic people need to live in a land where Germanic culture and ethnicity is the norm in this very natural and strong way. 100% ethnic purity is not needed, is unnatural and a failed concept.

But what’s wrong with a 100% white Germanic empire? As stated above, I cannot imagine a greater force than projected Eros, such as the one projected by the Greeks in their sculptures.

In the Germanic case we are not talking about homoerotic ephebes, but of English roses and Scandinavian blondes. They should be the galvanizing force for a Greater Dutchland. Race mixing should be the supreme sin.

I disagree with the analysis way above: if the Spanish soldiers married Indians it was simply because, unlike the Ango-Saxon families that arrived in what now is the US, the Spaniards arrived to the New World as unmarried singles. Indian chiefs always gave them teenage Indians as presents to appease them every time they passed through the villages.

Blood mixture was a psychogenic catastrophe for Latin America not because of the Indian genes, but because of their infanticidal psychoclass (the subject-matter of the book I am starting to translate for GoV readers, as can be seen in the thread “The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Preface”).

I cannot imagine a Germanic Reich redivivus without absolute love for one’s own physiognomy, something bordering Nuremberg laws. This is not even white supremacism, unless it’s coupled with imperialistic fantasies. It is mere defense of ethnicity and, therefore, of Kultur.

Larry Auster, the subject of this thread, is bolder in realizing this than those in other counter-jihad, conservative websites.

First of all with Romance and Slavic people. But of course, if they choose to stay with Christianity cooperation will be harder. But on the other hand I'm sure there are many Romance and Slavic individuals who want to join such a new Germanic project, and leave Christianity behind.

I don't know about the Slavs. I've heard it said (I can't remember where) that some of the Slavic peoples still think of Europe in terms of Christendom. My guess is that the Orthodox nations will cleave to Russia as they have in the past, especially if they're attacked by anti-Christian Muslims.

You'll also have to discount the North-Western periphery of Europe i.e. Ireland and Scotland. That is because both countries are not simply Christian but also purposely define themselves as Celtic cultures in opposition to the Germanic (Anglo-Saxon/Dane/Norman) peoples. Both countries are of shared Celtic-Germanic racial heritage but for reasons of mythology and identity the Celtic aspect is given complete precedence, so both would stand sharply outside a specifically Germanic union or entity.

Traditionally the Celtic region has (at times) been outside of the mainstream of Western history e.g. being outside of the Roman Empire and not participating in the Crusades. Then again, maybe not. Ireland and Scotland are Anglicised in language. There is a perceptible Danish influence on Irish culture in such things as identical folk tales. Though I do believe that the political union between Scotland and England is already coming to an end. In any case if the core European peoples definitively reject mass immigration and multiculturalism then the peripheral countries of Europe will undoubtedly follow this lead.

But you have to be very optimistic to believe that the current European Zeitgeist will do an 180º turn.

In fact, 180º turns are very common. You mention the failure of Hitler's Nazism. Well, after WWII the mythological narrative of the Western Christian civilization mandated doing everything 180º opposite to Nazism. Things that had been the most natural, such as European nationalism, was turned around 180º. And this is the derangement syndrome we now suffer severely under.

Once this American/Anglo/French totalitarian horror show has crash landed, I can assure you a 180º turn away from their position.

Another example is the French Revolution, which was a 180º turn. Even 180 degrees away from normal sanity and common sense.

Race relations in America is another example. Racial prejudice didn't transform into race blindness, but into deranged anti-racism. In effect, if the black guy was by default seen as the guilty one up until the '50s, the white guy is by default seen as the guilty one today.

People never learn from history. They just swap the image 180º. That's conceptually a very simple thing to do. Much harder than learning from history. If people had been able to learn from history, the lesson from Nazism would have made them protest against Islam. Instead they swapped the picture 180º and fear Germans and white people.

I'm not saying 180º turns are good, but indeed they are common in history.

Anyway, I very much doubt the future can be predicted.

There are limits to what we can say about the future, but we can still talk about it.

Take weather forecasting. We are able to say that a rain is coming but we can't say exactly which day.

Further into the future it becomes to chaotic to say anything about the weather, but we can say things about our climate. E.g. our solar system's rotation in the Milky Way is the most determining factor for whether our planet is going to be cold or warm (no CO2 is not a factor).

Now look at this big stone. Will it stay there forever, or will it at some point have moved? I claim that it won't stay like that forever.

Will American troops reside in Germany forever? No.

When it comes to the imminent fall of the current order, there are too many factors in motion at the same time that each alone have the potential of making it fall: dollar collapse, ethnic civil war, Iranian nukes, weak and paralyzed leadership. It's like the stone in the picture above with windstorm/thunder/skyfall together with warfare around with exploding bombs all over the place, together with a guy standing there pushing the stone, and at the same time earthquakes. We will not be able to say which factor that will first move the stone, but it is a fair assessment that the stone will move from its position in a near future.

When it comes to the issue of social paradigm change, we have to enter the world of human mythology to understand this, in order to see the frames of the possible. The study of Cultural Anthropology gives a good background for this. We still cannot predict what will happen. But we can exclude many things as not possible. There is an internal logic even to mythology, in fact more for mythology than for other things.

In my last comment I speculate more freely about what the world could look like by the beginning of the next century. However, the purpose there was not to predict the future, but to paint a possible picture of our future, as a means to counter Roman's interpretation of my position, which I didn't agree with.

Regarding Celtic people. I guess your destiny will depend on whether the Anglos will regain their confidence and build their own empire, or remain weak and scattered as satellites to a Germanic entity.

In the case of an Anglo empire it's logical they you'd become incorporated into that. In the latter scenario you are more likely to be freer, as satellites and natural allies of the Germanic entity, quite as the Anglos themselves.

It's a nice fantasy. But I don't find it realistic. Once again, look at the Russian example for the way to go.

Race mixing should be the supreme sin.

Racial mixing will indeed no longer be celebrated but instead discredited. Initially we might see a 180 degree turn about this. However, to see something as a "supreme sin" is a Christian way of thinking. Something that we need to move away from orthogonally.

Please notice, an 180 degree turn is a very weak movement compared to an orthogonal movement. Just another flip and you are back to where you started, always moving inside the same ballpark. While with an orthogonal movement you leave that dimension altogether.

I cannot imagine a Germanic Reich redivivus without absolute love for one’s own physiognomy.

I cannot imagine any sustainable political entity without the love for the physiognomy of the leading ethnic group. However, that by no means implies ethnic purity. Look at Russia again!

Larry Auster, the subject of this thread, is bolder in realizing this than those in other counter-jihad, conservative websites.

While Auster is more insightful than the most, he's still stuck on mending the Western Christian civilization. For him Christianity is a constant that he is unable to reflect about. His blog is good for following the complete failure of American conservatism. And also for racial issues (i.e. the failure of the American way of dealing with racial issues). The rest is not very useful, and he believes in the strangest things, e.g. astrology. His position on Islam is also too weak. Quite as the Catholic Church he's caught in the Abrahamic trap. And he's too cross-eyed about "liberalism" to see things clearly. He considers liberalism as a bigger problem than Islam, and evil, which Islam is not. He respects Islam as a world religion and does not want to defeat it in a total war.

Roman"Basically everything in Scandinavia is user-friendly. Even the taxes;-)"

Misunderstanding:-)

"Problems are with wrong tax-users." I.e. immigrants, that hate Sweden and everything that "Swedishness" is. Native and western welfare-recipients are certainly the ones that are usually aware of their debt to the society. The taxes are used as they are intended to.

CSGermanic people need to live in a land where Germanic culture and ethnicity is the norm in this very natural and strong way. 100% ethnic purity is not needed, is unnatural and a failed concept.

RomanBasically you propose a 100% white Germanic empire. I agree it is not doable with the current paradigm ruling. Not even imaginable.

I didn't advocate nor contest anything along Nurnberg laws. I am just stating the fact, descriptive vs. prescriptive.I think that this future Germanic empire will be attractive to many kinds of people, but I am sure they will be mostly very white people. I wouldn't imagine anything resembling theories of Himmler and Co. as a testing method; I think we will be long past this kind of ideas.Once the basic tenets of new state organism are established it will be a rather straightforward process of joining and accepting it or not. Of course the common Germanic narrative is yet to be told, but it seems it is underway.Creating the viable tenets will be the challenge.We might as well start working on it right away, since I never was a great fan of Christianity, although I suspect that Jesus was much cooler than usually portrayed;-).And I speak quite decent German too:-).

Anyway, it is also imaginable that some hybrid crusader Christianity version arises, something like new Reconquista spirit burning in the hearts of Northern Avengers? Who knows?

It would take me a long time to read those Auster polemics about Islam. But I do remember he was the one who firstly posted the “nuke Mecca” article by “Westerner” (who’s this guy?), which is always linked at the top of by blog.

Unlike Auster I am not a Christian. Neither do I believe in astrology or new age nonsense.

I have been reading your blog: what you say about the American cauldron of MC since the times of Lincoln. Recently I had been thinking along similar lines but we have been so brainwashed that the natural tendency is to immediately block such ideas as thoughtcrime. The police are inside us…

We will see how you like my emerging paradigm (the fourth book I will be publishing in GoV only points out, academically, to the tip of the iceberg of it). For the moment I can only say that the worlds Arthur Clarke envisioned in two or three of his best sci-fi novels fairly depict what do I have in mind.

Yes indeed it is! This is exactly why I spoke in terms of exorcism and driving out demons at the beginning of this thread. Mostly people get freaked out about what I have to say, but then others find it fascinating and inspiring. This time it went particularly well. Mostly it doesn't. That's why I this time have written more then ever about what's on my mind. If I don't feel the people are listening, I normally fall into silence (my log hasn't been going very well...). I thank all the good people here for this inspiration.

The main enemy is indeed within us. And this is what happens when trying to change of moral grammar, all these demons and thought crime policemen pops up. Only the most eagerly curious, and a bit odd, continues such a line of thought. The others turn around.

It's sort of funny that a Polak and a Spaniard are the most enthusiastic about an ethnically based German empire. And I'm not the typical proponent either, having my heart directed towards Southern Europe. And two years ago you rather found me praising Ancient Rome (I still do of course!) I find Germanic people boring and square, but sort of brilliant (history clearly shows that). After about a decade out in the cold, I have once again taken Germanic people to my heart because I can see their great tragedy. I think I can see their dilemma and how to solve it.

While at the same time it makes perfect sense for Poles, Spaniards and Celts to take an interest in this. For the political stability it would give to all of Europe, once the current order falls. Without it there would be a huge power vacuum. Who would expand into that? Russia, China, Islam? Or first Islam, then Russia, and finally China? That's the good thing with the day the American troops leave Germany, because at that time the Germanic European will be forced to immediately build a strong military power. And you could imagine how many of the good things that we have discussed here that would be catalyzed by that.

Anyway, getting to the point of this comment. Since you brought up the issue of ethnic purity in future Germanic nations or empire. One thing that is overlooked, since we are generally so brainwashed by the ideas since the French Revolution, is that not all residents in a country have to be citizens.

I.e. stable political entities of the future (Germanic, Romance, Slavic etc.) should secure the power within their ethnic group. The best way to grant this is to reserve citizenship focusing on ethnicity. Like in the old city-states. This is a very good concept, that creates stability and avoids many unnecessary conflicts. And it puts ethnicity at the center at the top of our concepts. Which is good. We need to focus on our ethnicity to survive. Today it's the other way around.

I'm sorry but I consider the idea of "ethnic purity" as something springing from the mindset of the French Revolution. You know there was a whole bouquet of ideas that sprung from that horrible event.

If we stick with egalitarianism we limit our thinking and might end up with the idea of ethnic purity. This is solved with the "redefinition of citizenship".

It also elegantly solves the "eternal" dilemma with the Jews, which is constantly turned 180º, always coming back to where it started. My solution moves it into an orthogonal direction, and it is smoothly out of the picture. Also it's the best life insurance that the Jews could be given. But this idea is not about the Jews. It's the same for all. The point is that there will be no exception for Jews (how stupid wouldn't that be!)

(97) Jesus said : "The Kingdom of the Father is like a woman who was carrying a jar full of meal. While she was walking on a far road the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her on the road. She did not realize it. She had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she put the jar down and found it empty."

He's playing games with people's minds! The kingdom of god is like an... empty jar.

But consider also the parable of the mustard seed. The point here (which is missed today) is that back then mustard was considered a weed. So it's something bad that grows up into something big and beautiful (a mustard tree). Same idea with the leaven bread.

The message is: it's the unexpected! The kingdom of god is not what you expect it to be. The "empty jar" follows the same idea, but makes it even more pointed. Indeed what is it the woman experiences when she looks into the jar and it's empty: surprise! But at the same time Jesus is playing games with his audience, because their first reaction will be to think that the kingdom of god, will be something empty!

If we put the whole message of Jesus together, regarding this, what he's saying is: The kingdom of god is not what you expect, and it's not in a distant future, it's all around you in the here and now, just open your eyes!

My interpretation is that most of the words of Jesus was never meant to be moral doctrines, but things that were said to turn things upside down in the minds of people. So that it would start moving inside of their heads! I think he actually aimed for making people start thinking for themselves.

However, the early Christians couldn't absorb more than half of Jesus' message. It's funny sometimes how blind they were to what he had really been saying.

I recommend "The Five Gospels" from the Jesus Seminar.

People laughed at George W. Bush when he called Jesus the greatest philosopher. But I'm not laughing. Jesus was truly great, but his main skill was as an rhetorician.

Jesus was a great guy. We can learn a lot from him.

Anyway, it is also imaginable that some hybrid crusader Christianity version arises, something like new Reconquista spirit burning in the hearts of Northern Avengers?

Well, anything that solves the problem is fine. But after Western Christianity went through the Enlightenment etc. I cannot see this happening. Christianity cannot even affirm it's position within the Western societies, it effectively excuses for itself. How could it then be used to affirm anything externally?

However, in the case of Russia they do not have this problem. They can still use Christianity in this way.

Maybe we will all be taken over by the Russians, and remain Christians in that way? That's another thought...

“…That's why I this time have written more then ever about what's on my mind.”

Thanks for sharing! I also find it exasperating that I always finish talking to myself in a world where very very few want to think for themselves. (BTW, what I will share in my forthcoming GoV thread is so personal...)

“Anyway, getting to the point of this comment. Since you brought up the issue of ethnic purity … And it puts ethnicity at the center at the top of our concepts. Which is good. We need to focus on our ethnicity to survive. Today it's the other way around.”

An Umwertung aller Werte is needed. But as you say, rather than the 180 degrees move it’s better the perpendicular (“orthogonal”) escape from its gravity field. Nietzsche’s anti-Christian “revaluation of all values” failed for obvious reasons (cf. Alice Miller’s The Untouched Key).

“I recommend "The Five Gospels" from the Jesus Seminar.”

I already got it. Interesting but flawed. The seminar people were liberal Christians or Jesus admirers. Albert Schweitzer said that people project their ethics toward the figure of Jesus, and that the best way to know a modern person is to read his “life of Jesus”. I really don’t know who the historical Jesus was. Maybe Morton Smith had a point? I don’t know. But as I said during the hate discussion with Free Hal, I still admire the hate diatribes in the old and new testaments.

When things turn really nasty in the West I hope a lot of fire-and-brimstone post-Christian preachers crop out…

An Umwertung aller Werte is needed. But as you say, rather than the 180 degrees move it’s better the perpendicular (“orthogonal”) escape from its gravity field.

Right on!

Nietzsche’s anti-Christian “revaluation of all values” failed for obvious reasons.

Mussolini was much wiser. He treated Christianity with respect. We cannot erase our history, we must treat our traditions with respect. In Sweden 90% of cultural history buildings are churches. Imagine a lunatic anti-Christian leader who would tear them down, what would be left of our historical memory?

I would use the churches for Pagan ceremonies. I understand that would not be considered respectful in the view of some Christians, but that problem is in their head.

Regarding the Jesus Seminar: I read it like I read Nietzsche or Auster: selectively! Sure there is the projection you are talking of, but there are several good points being made that are indisputable.

Russians got a complete free pass from the entire world including Muslims for Chechnya.

That was inside Russia's own territory. That's not seen the same way.

For everyone else, including Muslim Arab militias in Darfur, it's open season on Muslims.

Inside the country's territory.

It is American military action that is never seen as acceptable by world opinion which is controlled by leftists.

Yes, there is opinion voiced against it from the highest priesthood. But we don't see any concerted NATO action organized in order to stop it. Get it? (I already explained all this in what I wrote.)

I understand your big disappointment that people are not grateful for the actions of America around the world. But people respect the strong ones, not the ones that are nice and self-sacrificial. Just adapt to the real world!

In general, Muslims seem to object only Muslim lives that are lost to Americans or Israelis.

While your text is far from a comprehensive and fair description of world and press reactions to different events, but rather an expression of above mention disappointment, let me address this one.

Criticism is put forward to those that care about it and moved by it. And since Americans are so sensitive to such critique, that's exactly why it happens! While e.g. China does not care sh*t about such critique, and that's why it doesn't happen.

I know, I know, it's not fair. However, deal with it!

You can compare with the situation in a class room. The mentally weak teacher, that is sensitive to objections, will get more of that from the pupils since it works so nicely. She won't get rewarded for being nice. Instead it is the strong teacher with a steel mentality that wins the respect of the pupils.

I think I probably misunderstood the initial formulation as meaning "100% white Germanic" -- and my objections where based on that -- while I see now that what was meant was "100% white".

Well, I still don't like the 100%.

However, in the scenario I depict, 99.9% of the citizens would be white. And at least 95% of the population. But that really depends on the composition of the remaining 5%. There cannot be much of very alien cultures in that. Further, there must be no single other racial group in very high numbers. But I expect that most of these people will be of mixed race, in any concrete situation.

For those who think that 95% sounds too low, and too much like the situation of some Western countries today, well say 99% then. As long as we don't say 100% because we do not want that sort of thinking (it's self-defeating for a number of important reasons).

99.6% is OK with me, always provided the laws of a nation forbid the mestization of Caucasians, and that non-whites cannot represent more than 0.4% or even less of the (non citizen) population within a nation.

You are talking about a sort of race-totalitarian society. I definitely don't. Such ideas turn me off and brings the smell of the French Revolution.

But sure, thoughts like that are understandable in the dire conditions we are in. I already mentioned South African Apartheid in positive terms. Not as an ideal, but as a society that worked in practice. But not even they had laws against mestization.

that non-whites cannot represent more than 0.4% or even less of the (non citizen) population within a nation.

Regardless of how you mean this, I'd say that this is a formulation that will take its own life, and lead to rather horrific scenarios, even to blood and death.

So we have this guy of mixed race, and the race quota police comes and knocks on the door, and tell him that he's been selected as surplus above the quota. Where do we send him? I don't expect any other country wants to receive him. And he himself of course wants to stay with his mother, who is all white, all Germanic. Germanic culture is the only thing he knows. He's fully identitywise and loyaltywise attached to the Germanic society.

Do we set up a deserted island were we put all people like him? The whole thing becomes nasty and messy. At some point, people will realize that the easiest way to fulfill the quota criterion is to shoot off the "wrong" people. But that's messy in another way...

Chechar, the ideas you express are the ideas of the 180 degree turn from the present situation. And we do not like 180 degree turns do we? Maybe we can find a way to turn orthogonally in this situation?

In the society we will already see a 180 degree turn of the attitude of people regarding the current order. I believe we will see lynchings of politicians, opinion makers, Muslims, etc. A new regime does not need to add to that. Instead it should have a balancing and moderating effect.

Attitudes about racial mixing can also be expected to turn 180 degrees. The regime does not need to add to that with laws about it.

What needs to be done politically is to remove problematic groups, that identify within their group and not with our society. Typically Muslims.

But then we are left with a set of individuals of mixed race who do not really belong anywhere, but feels that they belong in our society. Most of whom are organically part of families of Germanics.

I think it's a dangerous utopia to define these people out of reality. Instead the regime should have a balancing effect on these sort of attitudes. These people will have it tough enough as it is. When I say that I want Christian ethics to go away, it's not because I want to see a 180 degree turn away from it. Instead it is Christianity that ended up in steep imbalance. What I want to do is to balance things back.

So what I have suggested is: 1) A new great mythological narrative where our own ethnic group is given the pivotal position, 2) A constitution where citizenship is reserved for people of our ethnic group (with very rare exceptions). The boy in the example above, with a father from the Third World, cannot be a citizen. But his grandchildren could. And he can stay and live here together with his mother. And 3) Alien ethnic groups, typically from the Third World, that do not identify with our ethnic group, will have to be removed one way or the other. However, single such individuals can reside here, e.g. for business reasons.

Altogether, this guarantees the survival and future thriving of our own ethnic group. There's no need to add special laws micromanaging this. Especially since the popular attitudes will turn around 180 degrees.

Well yeah: I am so scared by anti-white racism, as Fjordman informed us in the last chapter of Defeating Eurabia, that sometimes I like to push Hitlerian views. I still think that, despite his absolutely pathological anti-Semitism, he was right to talk about African immigration into Germany by leftists as an intention “to bastardize the Aryan race” as I quoted him way above.

* I believe we will see lynchings of politicians

Yessss!, yess! This is what I have in mind (not the lynching of ethnics but of the traitors who brought them here)!

* 2) A constitution where citizenship is reserved for people of our ethnic group (with very rare exceptions).

Agreed.

* 3) Alien ethnic groups, typically from the Third World, that do not identify with our ethnic group, will have to be removed one way or the other.

Is there nothing called 'disagreeing' in the vocabulary of Auster? There are only 'agreeing' and 'denigrating'? But I suppose that if you are sufficiently obsessed by someone, even his disagreeing with you might emotionally feel like denigration.

But this mischaracterization of me by Auster is demonstrably wrong. In the follow-up discussion to this long thread, I'm referring to Auster several times, agreeing with him, without "denigrating" him, here and below.

Then my supposed "denigration of Christianity". Well, it might feel so to some, but this is not what I'm doing. I'm characterizing Christianity from many aspects. Surely more one-sided in this discussion, since it's focused on the downfall of the Western-Christian civilization.

It seems that Auster does not take well an intellectual discussion about his most fundamental assumptions. He seems the questioning of those assumptions as "denigration". Surely, he can have such discussions, as long as he feels he's in control and has the upper hand. But once he felt that the discussion was not going his way, he went for the Henry Gates tactic.

This sort of tactic works particularly well on the friends of Lawrence Auster / Henry Gates. They will swallow the theater at face value, without examining what really happened. And in the case of Auster, it serves its purpose for an even more fundamental reason: the noise being made stops the intellectual discussion that he does not want to have.

There was a whole range of very loud posts from Auster, two years ago, making personal and obsessive attacks on me, while I tried to continue the intellectual discourse. However, I gave up, of course, and ended up being p*ssed off instead.

It is of course impossible to deal with someone acting with a Henry Gates attitude towards you. Unless you are a police officer that could put him under arrest. Otherwise you are most certainly damned if you do, and equally damned it you don't.

Auster also uses the same tactic against the critics of his most fundamental assumptions, as the current liberal order does. The critique is never considered valid critique. It's characterized as "denigration" or as rude, aggressive, deranged, disorderly, etc. Thus the critique is just dismissed. The actual arguments do not have to be addressed. It's very convenient. And then the whole thing is psychologized. The critic is categorized as mentally disturbed, one way or the other, and the discourse changes to hobby-Freudianism. Once again, a very convenient way of avoiding to discuss valid critique that one is unable to answer.

Guys: please don't do it here... Until now this thread was a model of corteous, non personal exchanges, as you yourself said, CS, way above. So nice that you felt free in this thread to finally speak out your worldview way above.

Nevertheless, I would have a beer in the White House together with Auster any day! Or even in a black barrack, if that's the offer.

PS. Just to clarify: The description above is not about yesterday's post, but about the long range of posts Auster wrote two years ago, when making things personal with me. And the same phenomenon has popped every now and then since.